Planet Creative Commons

This page aggregates blogs from Creative Commons, CC jurisdiction projects, and the CC community. Opinions are those of individual bloggers.

2,6 millones de imágenes del dominio público, disponibles para descargar y usar

CC Chile, August 29, 2014 11:21 PM   License: Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 2.0 Chile


Por años, las bibliotecas han estado digitalizando sus colecciones, como una manera de facilitar el acceso del público a la cultura. Preocupados particularmente por el texto, normalmente resultaba muy difícil rastrear las ilustraciones y fotografías presentes en esos trabajos.

Kalev Leetaru ha decidido enmendar esta situación y para ello programó su propio software, que le ha permitido subir 2,6 millones de imágenes a Flickr, todas ellas en el dominio público.

Las imágenes fueron compiladas desde y fueron producidas entre 1500 y 1922. En total, se calcula que la tarea estaría completa tras la publicación de 12 millones de fotografías.

“La mayoría de las imágenes que se encuentran en los libros no se encuentran en ninguna de las galerías de arte del mundo. Las copias originales se han perdido hace mucho tiempo”, dijo Leetaru a la BBC.

Puedes ver, descargar y usar el archivo a tu antojo acá.

Más información, acá.

MapWorks Learning combines OER and open data to protect threatened biodiversity

Creative Commons, August 28, 2014 04:25 PM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

Mangrove forests have been described by the World Wildlife Fund as one of the world’s most threatened tropical ecosystems. In an effort to protect and raise awareness around this problem, MapWorks Learning launched the first of what they plan to make an annual Mapathon for ecological preservation and learning. The inaugural event engaged schools, universities, and environmental groups around the world to document the health and well being of mangrove populations using the Mapping the Mangroves tool.

Screenshot 2014-08-21 14.45.03

The Mapping the Mangroves (MTM) toolkit is a project originally funded by Qatar Foundation International, and is now a keystone project of MapWorks Learning. MTM uses a mapping application built on the open source Ushahidi software platform, relying on crowdsourcing to collect geographic and descriptive data about mangrove forests. The project’s reporting system allows anyone to submit a report about mangrove forests, describing the area’s biodiversity and pairing it with geographic coordinates and other sensor data. The data are then displayed on an interactive map on the project’s homepage, with all reports searchable and explorable by geographic region and other habitat or report traits. The data are freely available for download and licensed under a CC0 Public Domain Dedication, too.

The MTM project is supporting the development of OER curriculum introducing learners to mangrove forest ecosystems, basic species identification, and explaining how they can take part in the monitoring and protection of forests around the world. The toolkit’s learning material is available under a CC BY-NC-ND license on OER Commons.

To find out more about MapWorks Learning and their upcoming Mapathons see, visit them on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.


CC Taiwan, August 28, 2014 11:54 AM   License: 姓名標示-相同方式分享 3.0 台灣

七月初時,Creative Commons以及其他35個組織共同發表了一份公開聲明,希望促使跨太平洋夥伴協定(Trans-Pacific Partnership,TPP)的談判者撤回在現有著作權保護期間上再延長20年的提案。

The 2nd OER Summer Camp on Luxi Island of CC China Mainland

Creative Commons, August 27, 2014 11:58 PM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

The following is a guest post by LIUPing, members of the CC China Mainland Affiliate team and the School of Open community. Below is a description of the 2nd CC China Mainland open educational resources (OER) summer camp (30th June to 8th July 2014) for the children of Luxi Island, a remote island off the coast of China.

Why did we have the 2nd OER Summer Camp?

The summer of 2013 was special for the CC China Mainland team, Wenzhou Medical University and These three parties co-hosted OER summer camp which was successfully initiated on Luxi Island. For Wenzhou Medical University, the summer camp has already been a part of its routine volunteering activities for five consecutive years. But it’s the first time for them to connect such a camp with the CC China Mainland Project. The latter, to their surprise, brought something fresh this time; a real world OER activity in rural China took shape.

The first OER summer camp received great feedback, not only from volunteers of Wenzhou Medical University that participated, but from the officials of Luxi Island, and more importantly, from the students of Luxi Public School.

Can we create some OER courses?

The first successful but not flawless camp greatly encouraged us to hold the second one. We thought there was a lot of room for improvement, especially that more CC-licensed OER should be included. In addition to OER available online, we wondered if we could make some interesting online courses ourselves for the kids within our reach. And based on feedback, “How to make herbarium” was regarded as the most interesting course during the first camp.

“We hope to make a difference,” said volunteers from Wenzhou Medical University. “why not make some courses based on our knowledge as medical students? We believe that would be more interesting and flexible.”

What courses did we create?

All preparations went smoothly by volunteers, days before the launch of the camp. Wenzhou Medical University’s student center, which provides opportunities for students to start small businesses within the campus, happened to have a photography studio. Undoubtedly, it was chosen to be our “OER course studio” for making videos of the courses. About 12 volunteers participated and 16 different courses were recorded, of which 14 were used, including:

1. The introduction of traffic signs (video)

2. Comprehensive water treatment, namely sewage treatment, flood prevention, drainage, water supply and water saving. The course was concentrated on how to identify water quality (video)

Comprehensive water treatment
ZHU Renkai / CC BY

3. Interesting Japanese language (video)

Interesting Japanese language
WANG Hongying / CC BY

4. Traditional Chinese handwork: stamp, tri-colored glazed pottery of the Tang Dynasty and blue and white porcelain. The courses teach students aged from 11-13, on how to create this handwork.

Traditional China handwork

5. Interesting Traditional Chinese Medicine: introduce some basic knowledge about TCM, which is relevant to students daily lives. (video)

Interesting Traditional Chinese Medicine
WANG Hongying / CC BY

6. Interesting history: the introduction of some historical events which had significant impact on China. (video)

Interesting history
ZHU Renkai / CC BY

7. Presentation skills: How to give a presentation or host an event. How to present yourself in front of people with confidence. (video)

8. Course for senior citizens on the island: including some basic knowledge of labor contract if any of their family members are immigrant workers in other provinces; living knowledge such as why some vegetables can’t be cooked together, etc. (video)

Course for seniors in the island
WANG Hongying / CC BY

9. Pink ribbon: the course was designed for females on the island by Wenzhou Medical University volunteers. The presenter is a Clinical Medicine Science major student; she introduces relevant knowledge of breast cancer, including how to prevent it from happening. (video)

Pink ribbon
YANG Jiayi / CC BY

10. Muscle-bone strengthening exercise: Through proper adjustment in human body and correct method for breath (muscle, bone etc.), the exercise can help to improve blood circulation and the functions of internal organs of the body (heart, spleen, liver, lungs and kidneys). (video)

11. Interesting Oral English: Mr. Percy provides kids with some simple and easy oral English. (video)

12. MOOC from Guokr: How to select good quality fruit. A specially designed course for kids (link)

Feedback from Participants of the 2nd Luxi Summer Camp

Students’ comments on the OER summer camp:

CHEN Xinhao, Grade One:

We had many different courses, and learnt a lot from our teachers. Besides, discipline plays a big role in our classes. I learnt how to be strong, even if being injured, I didn’t cry. Teachers cared us a lot and we can feel the love from their hearts. Maybe next time, we can have more classified courses based on our exiting knowledge. I sincerely hope that they can come again; we really like all these teachers.

CHEN Yanjie, Grade Four:

I enjoyed my stay with teachers, from their daily lives, I learnt how to be strong, independent and insistent on my dreams. Teachers gave us so many supports and encouragement. Same time, I got to know my weak points and believe that I can always do better. I really hope they can come and visit us next summer, by binging knowledge and happiness. I like my teachers.

MIAO Xiaoting, Grade Four:

Though I can’t fully understand the class, I think all classes are great and interesting. Teachers really tried hard to explain us. I like this kind of teaching and will try my best to learn in future. I enjoyed the play time with teachers after class. It’s funny to play games and take photos together. So many unforgettable moments. I hope all of them can come back next summer. I love them! In order to provide us good classed, teachers’ preparation task lasted late at night and got up early in the morning. I hope they can have good rest after back home.

ZHENG Ruize, Grade Six:

One of the important things I learnt from these teachers is always be diligent, humble and hard work. I believe that I can walk out of this island and get to know the world outside. Now I’m on Grade Six, and will be in mid school soon. I think I will work harder in future and let myself become an excellent student with the days to come. I really hope after grow-up, I can back to the island with teacher, to support more kids in this island. I hope all teachers would take good care of themselves. I like them all and look forward to seeing them again with diversified courses.

Volunteers’ comments on OER summer camp:

QIN Xu, age 19, major in Law:

The most impressive thing happened in summer camp is the process of making courses. It’s a very interesting to be a teacher for others. Besides, team work always makes things earlier to proceed and get diversified thoughts on how to do it. Personally, being a teacher in front of so many students in different ages made me overcome the fear in facing a camera, become more confident.

PAN Yixiu, age 19, major in Traditional Chinese Medicine:

After being a volunteer for the summer camp, I understand that when kids made mistakes, the last thing to do is to blame them, but let them know why this is not the right thing to do. Taking a trans-positional consideration always helps in communications. As a teacher, we should encourage, praise them, other than criticize or disappoint them. Only by doing so, they create a new world with more confidence.

LIU Hanzhong, age 19, major in rehabilitation:

This volunteering experience really made me feel that kid’s world is so clean, honest and simple. A fine educational system should concentrate on personality-building, then knowledge-teaching.

About the School of Open


The School of Open is a global community of volunteers focused on providing free education opportunities on the meaning, application, and impact of “openness” in the digital age and its benefit to creative endeavors, education, and research. Volunteers develop and run online courses, offline workshops, and real world training programs on topics such as Creative Commons licenses, open educational resources, and sharing creative works. The School of Open is coordinated by Creative Commons and P2PU, a peer learning community for developing and running free online courses.

2014 Creative Commons Korea International Conference

CC Korea (English), August 27, 2014 02:30 AM   License: 저작자표시(Attribution) 2.0 대한민국


2014 Creative Commons Korea International Conference

Now is the age of sharing.

The whole globe is connected, even things are connected now.

The power of sharing and connectivity that techology carries is making the world a better place.

Here, CCKOREA International Conference invites you to have
fresh inspirations from people whose efforts are bringing positive changes
to the world through technology.

  • Date & Time: September 16th (Tuesday), 2014 from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM
  • Venue : Ferrum Hall @ Ferrum Tower 3F (Junggu Suhadong, Seoul)
  • Fee: 50,000 KRW (free for CC KOREA supporters)
  • Hosted by CC KOREA






Wonsoon Park

Mayor of Seoul
Former Executive Director at Hope Institute

Since Seoul announced “Sharing City,” many eyes are on this metropolis. Park will share the philosophical meaning and the achievements of “Sharing City” project.


Jay Yoon

Partner at Shin & Kim
Project Lead of Creative Commons Korea
Member of Board of Directors of Creative Commons

Yoon launched Creative Commons License in Korea 10 years ago. Since then, he has participated in information sharing movement area such as intellectual property right and Internet governance.


Ryan Merkley

Creative Commons CEO
Former CSO of Mozilla Foundation

Merkley operated multiple open source projects in Mozilla Foundation. From 2014, he joined Creative Commons as CEO. He has been an active enthusiast of open movement in areas such as Open Government and open source.


Hal Seki

Lead of Code for Japan
Certified Developer by Ushahidi

Seki is a civic hacker from Japan. He is the leader of 420 developers who are creating web and mobile application services for Tsunami and nuclear disaster victims.


Helene Hahn

Open Knowledge Foundation Germany
Project Manager of Coding Da Vinci Project

Coding da Vinci is the first German open cultural data hackathon that brings together both cultural heritage institutions and the hacker & designer community to develop ideas and prototypes for the cultural sector and the public. All 17 developed projects run on open cultural data opened up by various cultural heritage institutions around Germany.


Todd Porter

Co-founder of FabCafe Global

A graduate of Stanford Business School, Todd is based in Tokyo and a co-founder of projects such as TEDxTokyo, IMPACT Foundation Japan and FabCafe Global, a new platform supporting the spread of the Maker Movement, which started in Tokyo and quickly expanded to cities such as Taipei and Barcelona.


Kyungmin Kim

Professor at Seoul National University Graduate School of Environmental Studies

Kim completed his Ph.D at Harvard University. As a professor at Seoul National University Graduate School of Environmental Studies, he studies commercial real estate market analysis and urban computing. His recent interest is social entrepreneurship and activation of sharing movement.


Molly Turner

Director of Public Policy and Civic Partnership at Airbnb

Turner holds a Master in Urban Planning from Harvard University. Before Airbnb, Molly consulted with governments on sustainable tourism development and conducted research with the UNESCO World Heritage Center. She currently serves on the boards of SPUR and Tumml. At Airbnb she manages public-private partnerships with various municipal government agencies, non-profits, and tourism bureaus. She also researches on social, economic and environmental impacts of home sharing.



일정 소주제 제목 강연자
09:30~10:00 Registration Registration
10:00~10:10 Welcome Jeongwook Seo / CCKOREA Director of Board
10:10~10:40 "Creativity and Sharing" [Keynote] "Share Everything" Ryan Merkley / CEO of Creative Commons

“Recreated Culture and Art of the Past”

Helene Hahn / OKFN

"Joyful digital playground: Maker Space"

Todd Porter/ Co-founder FabCafe Global
11:35~11:55 "Infinite Power of Creativity" Jeongho Yeo / Korea Copyright Commission
11:55 ~ 1:20 Lunch
1:20 ~ 1:50 "Sharing City" [Keynote] “Designing City as Sharing Platform" Kyung Min Kim / Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University
1:55 ~ 2:15

Share Hub ”Drawing the NEXT CIty with Sharing”

Nanshil Kwon / CCKOREA
2:20 ~ 2:50

"The Sharing Economy and Its Impact on the Future of Cities"

Molly Turner / Director of Public Policy and Civic Partnership at Airbnb

2:50 ~ 3:10 Break Time
3:10 ~ 3:40 "Civic Hacking" [Keynote] "Connect Everyhing" Jay Yoon / Project lead of Creative Commons Korea
3:45 ~ 16:15

Code for Japan ”420 Techies for Namie”

Hal Seki / Code for Japan
4:20 ~ 4:40

"The Convergence of Art and Technology, public data"

Sey Min / Randomwalks
4:45 ~ 5:05 “Hacking the City with Technology” Seunghun Jang / Codenamu
5:05 ~ 5:15 Intermission
5:15 ~ 5:45 Discussion

"Design Tomorrow with Sharing and Cooperation"

Jay Yoon, Wonsoon Park
5:45 ~ 6:00 Closing


CC Salon in San Francisco: Public Domain FTW!

Creative Commons, August 26, 2014 08:48 PM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

Source photo: Philipp Henzler, CC0

RSVP on Eventbrite
RSVP on Facebook

September 9, 2014
6:30 – 8:30 PM Pacific time
General Assembly, 501 Folsom St (1st and Folsom)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Public Transportation: Close to Embarcadero BART, Montgomery BART, or San Francisco Caltrain

Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and General Assembly are excited to announce an salon on Tuesday, September 9. This informal event will be a celebration of the public domain, with discussion on the cool things people are doing with it, why it’s under attack, and what we can do to fight for it. Before and after the discussion, we’ll have computers set up around the space with games from the Public Domain Jam. Public domain for the win!


Parker Higgins
EFF activist

Anne Wootton
Pop Up Archive CEO

Ryan Merkley
Creative Commons CEO

Nicky Case
videogame developer

About General Assembly

At General Assembly, we are creating a global community of individuals empowered to pursue work they love, by offering full-time immersive programs, long-form courses, and classes and workshops on the most relevant skills of the 21st century — from web development and user experience design, to business fundamentals, to data science, to product management and digital marketing.

Im September: Lizenztextlesung und OERde14

CC Germany, August 26, 2014 04:05 PM   License: Namensnennung 2.0 Deutschland

Zwei Veranstaltungen werfen ihre Schatten voraus:

Am 2. September findet in den Räumen von Wikimedia in Berlin die erste “CC Lizenztextlesung” überhaupt statt. Organisiert wird sie maßgeblich durch Jöran Muuß-Merholz für pb21 und nähere Informationen gibt es hier. Interesse bekunden/zusagen kann man schon jetzt, und zwar über facebook oder Google+.

Am 12. und 13. September schließt sich dann die OERde14 an, die zweite große OER-Konferenz nach der sehr erfolgreichen OERde13 letztes Jahr, diesmal noch größer dank neuer Location mit noch mehr Platz und mit der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung als Hauptförderer. Klare Schwerpunkte dieses Jahr sind die didaktischen Implikationen von OER, die Fragen nach der “richtigen” OER-Politik und erneut der Blick über den Tellerrand in andere Länder und auf deren Ansätze.

Open Coursebook in Intellectual Property

James Boyle, August 26, 2014 12:54 PM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

Cover of Intellectual Property: Law & the Information Society and link to purchase at Amazon.comDuke’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain is announcing the publication of Intellectual Property: Law & the Information Society—Cases and Materials by James Boyle and Jennifer Jenkins. This book, the first in a series of Duke Open Coursebooks, is available for free download under a Creative Commons license. It can also be purchased in a glossy paperback print edition for $29.99, $130 cheaper than other intellectual property casebooks.

About the book

This book is an introduction to intellectual property law, the set of private legal rights that allows individuals and corporations to control intangible creations and marks—from logos to novels to drug formulae—and the exceptions and limitations that define those rights. It focuses on the three graphmain forms of US federal intellectual property—trademark, copyright and patent—but many of the ideas discussed here apply far beyond those legal areas and far beyond the law of the United States.

The book is intended to be a textbook for the basic Intellectual Property class, but because it is an open coursebook, which can be freely edited and customized, it is also suitable for an undergraduate class, or for a business, library studies, communications or other graduate school class. Each chapter contains cases and secondary readings and a set of problems or role-playing exercises involving the material. The problems range from a video of the Napster oral argument to counseling clients about search engines and trademarks, applying the First Amendment to digital rights management and copyright or commenting on the Supreme Court’s new rulings on gene patents.comic page

Cover of Intellectual Property: Law & the Information Society -- Selected Statutes and Treaties and link to purchase at Amazon.comIntellectual Property: Law & the Information Society is current as of August 2014. It includes discussions of such issues as the Redskins trademark cancelations, the Google Books case and the America Invents Act. Its illustrations range from graphs showing the growth in patent litigation to comic book images about copyright. The best way to get some sense of its coverage is to download it. In coming weeks, we will provide a separate fuller webpage with a table of contents and individual downloadable chapters.  The Center has also published an accompanying supplement of statutory and treaty materials that is available for free download and low cost print purchase.

Why An Open Coursebook Project?

From the Introduction:

“Why do we do this? Partly, we do it because we think the price of legal casebooks and materials is obscene. Law students, who are already facing large debt burdens, are required to buy casebooks that cost $150–$200, and “statutory supplements” that consist mainly of unedited, public domain, Federal statutes for $40 or $50. The total textbook bill for a year can be over $1500. This is not a criticism of casebook authors, but rather of the casebook publishing system. We know well that putting together a casebook is a lot of work and can represent considerable scholarship and pedagogic innovation. We just put together this one and we are proud of it. But we think that the cost is disproportionate and that the benefit flows disproportionately to conventional legal publishers. Some of those costs might have been more justifiable when we did not have mechanisms for free worldwide and almost costless distribution. Some might have been justifiable when we did not have fast, cheap and accurate print on demand services. Now we have both. Legal education is already expensive; we want to play a small part in diminishing the costs of the materials involved.”

Frequently Asked Questions:


So this is just about saving students money?

Not a bad idea! But no, this is not just about price. Our point is not only that the current casebook is vastly too expensive, it is also awkward, inflexible, lacking visual stimulus, incapable of customization and hard to preview and search on the open web. Casebooks do not respond well to the different needs of different professors. Students cannot easily be given free, searchable digital access to all the materials, on all their devices, anywhere, access that does not go away when the course—or the publisher—ends. We can do that.

There are also lots of people outside of law school, or outside this country, who would like to know more about American law—just as there are people outside of computer science who want to know about artificial intelligence. Free is a good price-point for them. Customizable is a good form. This book is merely a beta-test version, but it is an example of what can be done.

The casebook is published under a Creative Commons Attribution, Non Commercial, Share-Alike license. It is available in two ways. First, it can be downloaded for free. No digital rights management. No codes. No expiring permissions. In the weeks to come we will put up a webpage offering downloads of individual and editable chapters. Second, a low cost but high quality paperback version is available at a reasonable price. Our goal has been to keep the price of the casebook below $30—which given the possibility of resale, might make it an environmentally attractive alternative to printing out chapters and then throwing them away. (The companion statutory supplement is available under a similar arrangement—$10 in print and freely downloadable.) We also hope both of these options are useful for those who might want to use the books outside the law school setting or outside the United States. The casebook and the statutory supplement will be available for a combined price of $40, which is $200 below the price of the leading alternatives in those categories. Those who do not want, or cannot afford, to pay that price can use the free digital versions.

Back to FAQs

Is this part of some kind of trend?

We hope so. This is the first in a series of free/low cost legal educational materials to be published by Duke’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain—starting with statutory supplements aimed at the basic classes. The goal of this project, and that of other ones such as the Berkman Center’s fascinating H20 project, or eLangdell, is creatively to improve the pricing and access norms of the world of legal textbook publishing, while offering the flexibility and possibility for customization that unfettered digital access provides. We hope it will provide a pleasant, restorative, competitive pressure on the commercial publishers to lower their prices and improve their digital access norms.

Back to FAQs

Why have a paper version at all?

We have heard from several colleagues, both those who ban laptops in class and those who do not, that an environmentally friendly alternative to printing out statutes and throwing them away would be desirable, particularly one that came with first sale rights and cost less than the comparable course-packet from the law school’s photocopying center.

Back to FAQs

What’s the catch? What kinds of DRM or licensing restrictions are there?

No DRM! The casebook is under a CC BY:NC:SA license. It requires attribution, permits any non commercial use and tells those who modify that they must share the freedoms they were given. After that? It is free to download. Free to copy. Free to modify.

The statutory supplement is under a CC: BY license, allowing unlimited reproduction and modification, including for commercial purposes. If you can undercut our commercial price on the statutes, go right ahead! We’d be delighted! Of course, the underlying statutes and treaties are in the public domain. You can use those without any restrictions. But if you want our preface, chart and editorial comments, you have at least to give attribution.

Back to FAQs

What formats is the casebook available in?

PDF and print for now—other formats (and modular versions) coming soon.

Back to FAQs

So you are against professors who want to be paid for their work and time?

On the contrary. In fact, one of the things we have learned in this process is how poorly both authors and students are being treated by the current system. The authors of casebooks and statutory supplements are generally

a.) unable to give their students digital access to the very books they have just written—unless it is fettered by digital rights management,

b.) unable to customize the material—omitting unwanted chapters or statutes, or adding in new material on the fly,

c.) and—despite the obscene prices on the books—given a relatively low share of the proceeds. All the disadvantages of profiteering with none of the advantages! Personally, we chose to keep the cost as low as possible, but we are fully aware of the labor and creativity required to put together a casebook—we just created one. It does not seem unreasonable to expect a reward to encourage that kind of activity in the future.

Suppose a professor chose to self-publish with a print-on-demand service. (We used CreateSpace, but there are many others.) Suppose she wanted to create an 825 page paperback, 7 in. x 10 in. casebook of her own. (Those are the same dimensions as the typical statute book and about twice as many pages.) Suppose she decided to price it at $60—which would be $100–$120 cheaper than the current casebook she assigns. (Though those, to be fair, are both in hardcover and even larger.) We calculate her per book royalty would be about $25 if bought on Amazon, $13 if bought in a bricks and mortar store; comparable to or larger than her royalty in a conventional publishing contract. Values vary, but to us, saving your debt-strapped students $100 each, while getting that degree of editorial control and that breadth of dissemination, seems like a pretty good deal.

We will be honest. We want very much to tip the norm towards free, unregulated digital access—so the whole world and not just her class can learn from her materials. And we think $60 is high—though not as bad as $160 or $200! But she could require the purchase of a paper copy, which her students could resell when the class is over, while also giving her students free digital access, and get much wider dissemination of and impact from her ideas.

Back to FAQs

What effect will efforts like this have on the textbook industry?

We think it alone will have zero effect. Our initiative is utterly insignificant, less than a fleabite—just a proof of concept. But we actually hope that the inexorable multiplication of projects such as these will be an aid to those still publishing with conventional textbook publishers and—long term—a benign influence on the textbook industry as a whole. To the casebook author trapped in contracts with an existing publishing house: remember when you said you needed an argument to convince them to price your casebook and your supplement more reasonably? Or an argument to convince them to give you more options in making digital versions available to your students in addition to their print copies, but without taking away their first sale rights? Here is one such argument. There are many more either already out there or in the pipeline, all offering slightly different versions of lower cost educational material that can be freely customized. Traditional textbook publishers can compete with free. But they have to try harder. We will all benefit when they do.

Back to FAQs

No one will buy if there is a free digital version. Right?

We disagree. And so do some of the empirics.

Read this and then this.

Back to FAQs

But what about a salesforce? How would that professor be able to get others to adopt her book without mailing it to everyone or having insistent salespeople pounding the halls?

They can read it, instantly, freely anywhere, just by downloading it! They can browse it on the exercise bike or on the train, scan through it on their tablet. Read it in their office. That’s much more efficient. In the world we imagine, professors will be able instantly to browse, search within and assess the pedagogical suitability of a free digital version of a casebook online. Perhaps this will put a merciful end to the never-ending cascade of free but unread casebooks in cardboard mailing boxes and charming but unwelcome casebook representatives in natty business suits; the 1950’s distribution mechanism for the casebook in the halls of the 21st century law school. That mechanism needs to go the way of the whale oil merchant, the typing pool and the travel agent. To the extent that the “justification” offered for today’s prices is that they are needed to pay for the last century’s distribution methods, we would have to disagree politely but emphatically.

Back to FAQs

How long to get an actual copy of the book?

We’ve found it takes about 5 days. Your mileage may vary.

Back to FAQs

Back to this book. What’s in it? Can I have a review copy?

Download it and see. That’s your review copy.

Back to FAQs

Even if you were to help save students some money on textbooks, legal education will still be very expensive, so therefore you should do nothing.

Sure. Have a nice day.

Back to FAQs 

About the authors

James BoyleJames Boyle is William Neal Reynolds Professor of Law at Duke Law School and the former Chairman of the Board of Creative Commons. His other books include The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind; Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society; Cultural Environmentalism (with Lawrence Lessig); and Bound By Law (with Jennifer Jenkins).


JennifProf. Jennifer Jenkinser Jenkins is Senior Lecturing Fellow at Duke Law School and the Director of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain. Her recent articles include In Ambiguous Battle: The Promise (and Pathos) of Public Domain Day and Last Sale? Libraries’ Rights in the Digital Age. She is the co-author, with James Boyle, of Bound By Law and the forthcoming Theft! A History of Music.


Otwarte licencje w projekcie – jak je efektywnie zastosować? cz. 1

CC Poland, August 26, 2014 06:01 AM   License: Uznanie autorstwa 2.5 Polska

W skrócie (jeśli nie masz czasu przeczytać całego tekstu)

- co raz więcej programów grantowych punktuje wyżej projekty, które publikują w otwarty sposób swoje rezultaty lub wręcz wymagają takiej publikacji,

- aby spełnić te wymogi sprawdź na jakiej licencji jesteś zobowiązany publikować swoje zasoby i dostosuj do niej zapisy prawno-autorskie w umowach w swojej organizacji,

- jeśli masz wybór i zastanawiasz się, którą licencję wybrać skorzystaj z tego narzędzia, ale pamiętaj że tylko wolne licencje (CC BY, CC BY-SA i kompatybilne) dają najszersze możliwości wykorzystania Twoich zasobów np. włączanie ich do Wikipedii

- publikując materiały zadbaj o odpowiednie oznaczenie licencji oraz dostępność publikacji, nie używaj technologii, które utrudniają dostęp osobom niepełnosprawnym (np. flash), pamiętaj o opisach tekstowych materiałów graficznych i wideo, jeśli publikujesz coś w druku lub zewnętrznych mediach zadbaj by odpowiednio oznaczone i dostępne treści znalazły się również na Twojej stronie,

- ekipa Creative Commons Polska odpowiada na Wasze pytania mailowo pod adresem cc @ i udziela wielu porad osobiście. Co środę Fundacja Nowoczesna Polska prowadzi telefoniczny dyżur porad prawnych dotyczących prawa autorskiego.

Otwartość w organizacjach pozarządowych

Po wakacjach zacznie się kolejny sezon grantowy. W konkursach Ministerstwa Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego, Akademii Orange, Ministerstwa Administracji i Cyfryzacji, Patriotyzmu Jutra Muzeum Historii Polski  i wielu innych otwartość rezultatów projektu doceniana jest w dwojaki sposób. Niektóre z nich na etapie oceny wniosków grantowych przyznają dodatkowe punkty przyznawanych za “uwolnienie” efektów projektu. Inne stawiają twarde wymogi dotyczące warunków prawno-autorskich na jakich powinny być dostępne rezultaty projektu – tu część warunki określa opisowo, a część wprost rekomenduje konkretne licencje Creative Commons. Obok wymogów związanych z prawem autorskim co raz częściej, co bardzo nas cieszy, znajdują się również wymogi dot. dostępności technologicznej publikacji np. zgodność ze standardami WCAG. W odróżnieniu jednak od warunków sprawozdawczości czy rozliczenia finansowego, oceny otwartości projektu i jego dostępności technologicznej nie da się dokonać tak łatwo. Często miewają z tym problem obie strony, przyznająca grant i realizująca za te pieniądze działania organizacja. Podpowiadamy jak najefektywniej wykorzystać wolne i otwarte licencje w projektach nie tylko aby spełnić wymogi konkursu, ale również tak aby zwiększyć potencjał naszych działań.

Licencje w publikacjach NGO

Po pierwsze formalności

Zależnie od wymogów grantodawcy w określony sposób dokumentujemy projekt, rozliczamy go, dbamy o standardy których wymaga. To naturalne, skoro finansuje nasze działania projektowe. W większości przypadków dzieje się to za środki publiczne, więc powinno zależeć nam wszystkim na ich odpowiednim spożytkowaniu. Jednym z co raz popularniejszych wymogów jest publikacja rezultatów/efektów projektu na odpowiedniej licencji lub warunkach prawno-autorskich. Co to oznacza? Zwykle wystarczy aby wszystkie utworu publikowane w ramach projektu (treści na stronie, raporty, zdjęcia, zasoby edukacyjne, filmy wideo) zostały opublikowane w sieci (dostępne za darmo) i udostępnione na odpowiedniej licencji np. Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa. W praktyce będzie to wymagać od grantobiorcy podstawowej świadomości prawa autorskiego, przynajmniej na tyle by zlecając takie produkty czy wykonując je z osobami spoza organizacji np. wolontariuszami uregulować kwestie prawne umową z przeniesieniem praw autorskich lub licencją.

Jaka licencja?

Zwykle licencja, której wymaga lub którą punktuje grantodawca jest jasno wskazana. Jeśli jednak została wskazana opisowo to znaczy, że możemy mieć jakąś swobodę wyboru. Np. w regulaminie konkursów MKiDN takich jak edukacja medialna i kulturalna znajdziemy zapis o dodatkowych punktach za spełnienie warunku “Popularyzacja efektów działań oraz dokumentacji zadania w formie publikacji tradycyjnej lub multimedialnej wraz z prawem do ich dalszego wykorzystania (np. na jednej z wolnych licencji).”  Wolnymi licencjami nazywamy: licencję Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa, Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Na tych samych warunkach lub inną licencję zgodną z definicją wolnych dóbr kultury.

Jaką licencję wybrać w takiej sytuacji? W skrócie: licencja Uznanie autorstwa (CC BY) pozwala na najszersze możliwe wykorzystanie również komercyjne, obejmujące nawet zmianę licencji lub objęcie całkowitą ochroną prawno-autorską utworów zależnych, Uznanie autorstwa – na tych samych warunkach, choć pozwala na wszystko (komercyjne wykorzystanie również) to nie pozwala na zmianę licencji w utworach zależnych, co z jednej strony gwarantuje nam zawsze możliwość czerpania z nich z powrotem, a z drugiej ogranicza komercyjne zawłaszczanie i organicznie prawa do wykorzystywania utworów stworzonych na bazie naszych.

Więcej o wymogach poszczególnych grantodawców możecie dowiedzieć się z katalogu konkursów z takimi zapisami w Przewodniku po otwartości dla NGO (str.66).

Licencje Creative Commons

Aby móc publikować materiały na licencjach CC musimy być posiadaczami praw autorskich majątkowych do utworów. Jeśli nie jesteśmy ich twórcami możemy nabyć je w wyniku umowy lub licencji. Zakresy umów i licencji muszą być takie same lub szersze od licencji, której wymaga od nas grantodawca. Przykładowo chcąc opublikować na CC BY plakat, którego przygotowanie zlecamy grafikowi powinniśmy podpisać z nim umowę, w której powinniśmy otrzymać zgodę na utrwalanie, zwielokrotnianie, obrót egzemplarzami, rozpowszechnianie i emitowanie (są to wszystkie pola eksploatacji wyrażone są w art. 50 ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych). Ponadto będziemy potrzebować również zgody na korzystanie i rozporządzanie opracowaniami utworów, o których mowa w umowie oraz przeniesienia na nabywcę prawa do zezwalania na korzystanie i rozporządzanie opracowaniami tych utworów. Jeśli przeraża Cię taki język prawny lub nie nie jesteś pewien/a tego czy umowy, z których już korzystasz spełniają te warunki skorzystaj z wzorów umów Koalicji Otwartej Edukacji i komentarza do nich np. w Przewodniku po otwartości dla NGO (str. 61).

Jak prawidłowo oznaczyć materiały? Niezależnie od rodzaju publikacji i tego gdzie zostanie udostępniona najważniejsze będzie umieszczenie w niej widocznych oznaczeń co do autorstwa, rodzaju licencji oraz, jeśli wymaga tego grantodawca, jego odpowiednich oznaczeń. Zależnie od rodzaju materiału oznaczenia będziemy umieszczać w różnych miejscach. W publikacjach książkowych, PDF-ach i plikach tekstowych najlepiej dodać informacje do stopki razem z linkiem do pełnej treści licencji. Link osobom które spotykają się z licencją po raz pierwszy zapoznać z jej szczegółowymi warunkami. W filmach informacje zwykle dodajemy w napisach końcowych. Zapis tych informacji w sposób który nie jest powiązany z plikiem np. umieszczenie informacji o licencji w opisie na na stronie czy w serwisie YouTube pod filmem będzie powodować, że pliki te po pobraniu i skopiowaniu nie będą już tej informacji posiadać, a więc ich odbiorcy nie będą wiedzieć na jakich warunkach mogą z nich korzystać.

Schemat informacji o licencji Creative Commons w publikacji:

Publikacja dostępna jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Na tych samych warunkach 3.0 Polska. Pewne prawa zastrzeżone na rzecz autorów [Lista autorów]. Treść licencji jest dostępna na stronie

Za skuteczną publikację materiałów zgodnie z tymi warunkami należy uznać umieszczenie ich w sieci, bez ograniczeń dostępu (np. haseł, konieczności logowania się, wyłącznie w serwisach społecznościowych wymagających posiadania konta etc.) wraz z odpowiednimi oznaczeniami. Najlepiej publikować materiały na swoje stronie lub we wskazanych przez grantobiorcę repozytoriach np. Platforma Kultury (Min. Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego), strona Akademii Orange dla konkursu Fundacji Orange. Dla niektórych zasobów np. PDF-ów z publikacjami książkowymi, raportami etc. warto skorzystać z ogólnych repozytoriów takich jak dedykowana dla organizacji pozarządowych.

Dostępność techniczna

Co raz częściej grantodawcy do zapisów o sposobie publikacji dodają zapisy dot. dostępności technologicznej dla osób o specjalnych potrzebach. Spełnienie tych wymogów (najczęściej WCAG 2.0) oznacza stosowanie zasad, które ułatwiają zapoznawanie się z całą treścią i nawigowanie po stronie czy dokumencie bez konieczności ingerowania np. w jego format. Treści publikowane jako piliki do pobrania np. PDF, DOC powinny być dostępne jako czysty tekst (z możliwością jego kopiowanie) i posiadać jasną strukturę nagłówków. Treści publikowane na stronach internetowych opublikowanie treści powinny unikać elementów animowanych (w szczególności takich jak flash) i posiadać opisy alternatywne dla ilustracji (w ramach możliwości również transkrypcje lub audiodeksrypcje dla filmów).

W sytuacjach, w których nasze materiały będa publikowane w innym miejscu niż nasza strona czy w repozytoriach wskazanych przez grantodawcę (np. w mediach) należy również pamiętać o warunkach przez niego wymaganych. Podobną sytuacją będzie wydawanie publikacji np. drukiem i sprzedawanie wersji drukowanej. To możliwe, a publikacje drukowane również mogą być dostępne na warunkach wybranej licencji Creative Commons. Warto natomiast pamiętać o udostępnieniu tych materiałów również w sieci, aby nie ograniczać ich dostępność.

Korzyści dla Ciebie i Twojej organizacji

OK. Spełniliśmy wymogi otwartości, materiały znalazły się na stronach, prawidłowo opisane, co dalej? Wykorzystanie licencji to nie tylko oznaczenie na Waszej publikacji. Kiedy udostępniamy treści w ten sposób dajemy naszym odbiorcom znacznie więcej możliwości ich wykorzystania (a być może również zaangażowania się poprzez nie w nasze działania). O użyciu wolnych licencji warto bardzo jasno informować np. umieszczając grafiki o tym co wolno zrobić z daną publikacją zamiast lub uzupełniając tradycyjną stopkę. Czytelnik/czka łatwo dowie się dzięki nim, że może taki materiał skopiować i remiksować np. wykorzystać część w swojej publikacji lub w przyszłości zrobię uaktualnioną wersję. Więcej kopi naszej publikacji, zrobionych dzięki licencji legalnie i bez konieczności pytania nas o zgodę  w sieci oznacza większe dotarcie. Rzadki jeszcze, ale zdarzający się czasem scenariusz wykorzystywania otwartych zasobów produkowanych przez organizacje pozarządowe jest też świetnym argumentem dla grantodawcy, że nasze produkty są praktyczne i przydatne. Jeśli chcecie dowiedzieć się, kto już korzysta w pracy swojej organizacji z wolnych licencji lub chcecie dać znać o tym, że to robicie dołączcie do bazy otwartych NGO prowadzonej przez Centrum Cyfrowe.

Korzystanie z wolnych licencji ułatwia również wykorzystywanie innych zasobów w ten sposób dostępnych np. Wikipedii. Gdzie znaleźć i jak wykorzystać zasoby dostępna na licencjach Creative Commons dokumentuje serwis

O tym jak otwierać nie tylko to co wymagane, ale zbudować cały projekt jako “otwarty” w drugiej części wpisu.


Wiki Loves Monuments: bringing open to Pakistan

Creative Commons, August 25, 2014 05:33 PM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

Faisal Maseet
Faisal Maseet / Khalid Mahmood / CC BY-SA

Wiki Loves Monuments is one of the most successful free culture events worldwide. A global photo competition organized by local Wikimedia chapters and groups, it has been running since 2010 and has grown larger each year. For 2014, we speak to Saqib Qayyum from Wikimedia Pakistan about how the event will help promote the commons to new communities.

Tell us about Wikimedia in Pakistan, and Pakistan’s open community.

Wikipedia is the 7th most most visited website in Pakistan and is known by the vast majority of the more than 30 million Internet users in the country. Despite having financial and social challenges, Pakistani people are embracing the Internet and the growth rate of internet users is on the rise.

Surprisingly, however, the English language edition of Wikipedia has only a thousand or so registered volunteer editors from Pakistan. When you compare it with the overall number of internet users in the country, this figure is miniscule. The most disappointing fact is that out of those thousand or so registered editors, less than 100 – mostly students – actively contribute to the world’s largest free encyclopedia. The people of Pakistan are not contributing as much to Wikipedia as they should.

The national language Urdu is also underrepresented on the internet and is experiencing an online stagnation. The Urdu edition of Wikipedia has more active editors from India than from Pakistan. There’s a strong need to encourage people to get involved with Wikipedia and push them to collaborate and exchange useful digital materials freely online.

With regards to the open source community in Pakistan, the situation is analogous to that on Wikipedia. Outside of a core group of members of Mozilla Pakistan and Linux Pakistan, the majority of internet users are not familiar with the free culture and open movements. This, in all likelihood, is due to a lack of widespread awareness of the movements.

Even as Pakistan is experiencing a widespread internet penetration amongst the public, unfortunately the country has not yet adapted well to the ideas of free culture and open. Copyright protection in Pakistan is a critical issue and copyright infringement and online piracy has always been a concern. With Wikimedia Pakistan, we can help to raise awareness of the advantages and benefits of having open and free platforms, and the major role this could play in developing our market and economy.

We all need to play our part in ensuring a bright future for the open and free internet. I think the success of the movement globally depends on participation of people from not only the developed countries but also from the Global South.

How did you get involved with the open source and Creative Commons movements?

When I wonder why people are not very interested in open educational resources such as Wikipedia or other movements that promote free and open content, I imagine one factor might be due to the low literacy rate in Pakistan, or the deficiency in human rights educational initiatives in the country.

Many people who know me over the internet assume I am a university student or a professional in the information technology sector, but the fact is I’m actually a college dropout and work part-time in my family-owned manufacturing company and deal with overseas clients. Therefore, I am able to be connected to the internet for most of the time, and am able to keep active on Wikimedia projects as a result. So my devotion to the free culture and open movements isn’t a professional pursuit, but one I indulge in because it is fun.

Many people, and even my family, ask why I’m involved in the Wikimedia movement, as it doesn’t play a role in building my career and is not connected to my line of work. In short, they think I am wasting my time. I disagree. I believe in the free exchange of ideas and knowledge in this ever changing world and vehemently advocate for the principles of collaboration, openness, transparency and consensus which lay the groundwork for innovation and growth.

Since discovering Wikipedia and Creative Commons as a teenager, I have made it a point to actively promote the concept of free knowledge and open content as I believe the free culture movement can bring broad and positive social change in Pakistan.

Right now, I’m involved with the free web-based travel guide project, Wikivoyage, and am planning to publish a travel guide book for Karachi, my hometown, drawing upon materials I and others have contributed to the Creative Commons licensed Wikivoyage project. There is the possibility this could be the first Creative Commons-licensed book in Pakistan.

Lahore Fort

Lahore Fort / M. Umair / CC BY

What is the history of Wiki Loves Monuments?

Wiki Loves Monuments is an international photographic competition held worldwide each year during the month of September, and organised by the volunteer Wikimedia community members. The first Wiki Loves Monuments competition was held in 2010 in the Netherlands as a pilot project. In 2011, it spread to around 18 countries in Europe and more than 170,000 photographs of cultural heritage sites were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. According to the Guinness Book of Records, the 2011 edition of Wiki Loves Monuments broke the world record for being the largest photography competition in the world. In 2012, the competition was organised on much bigger scale and extended beyond Europe, with a total of 35 participating countries and more than 363,000 photographs were contributed by more than 15,000 participants from around the globe. Last year, the Wiki Loves Monuments competition was held across six continents including Antarctica and had official participation from more than fifty countries.

What do you hope to achieve with the Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan competition?

Wiki Loves Monuments is one of the most successful initiatives of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past three years, more than 15,000 people, who have never contributed to Wikimedia projects, participated in Wiki Loves Monuments for the first time.

With Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan, I’m trying to encourage people in Pakistan to contribute to Wikipedia and motivate them to use Creative Commons licensing. It takes a lot of time and energy to edit an article on Wikipedia, but it’s pretty simple, fun and easy to take a photograph and upload it.

I believe once people participate in Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan they will eventually start to contribute to Wikipedia, which is amongst the most successful products of the open and free internet. Thus, they will eventually come to learn about the concept of a free culture movement. Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan, in my opinion is the best, quickest and easiest way to introduce the free culture movement to the country. I think Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan will bring a change in mindset of Pakistani people as to how they see the Internet. It will also spread awareness of free licensing and copyright amongst the people and will hopefully encourage a change in the mindset that knowledge should be freely accessible to anyone that we all should play our part to make this possible.

Why is Creative Commons licensing important to the competition?

Creative Commons is central to the competition in the same sense that it is important to the world’s largest encyclopedia Wikipedia, the most-used search engine on the web Google, and the largest and popular photograph database Flickr. I don’t think there’s really a good reason why one shouldn’t use Creative Commons licenses. Creative Commons licenses were specifically designed for creative works and photography is a creativity, an art. It gives freedom for sharing information and knowledge and aims to encourage creative sharing. Many professional photographers in Pakistan might feel uncomfortable about releasing their photographs under a free license but it’s worthwhile to release at least part of your work under a Creative Commons license. Even a small part would work and be more than enough.

The Creative Commons license provides an easy and flexible way to share, and enable reuse of, photographs which enables maximum public exposure, at no cost, for both the photographer and their work. Creative Commons licensing also gives the photographer control on how they want to distribute their works whilst still receiving credit for the work.

How do people get involved?

Participating in Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan is really straightforward. Lists of eligible sites to be photographed have been made available online on Wikipedia. All you need to do is register an account on the Wikimedia Commons media repository, choose the sites from the list to photograph, take photographs of your chosen sites and upload the photographs to Wikimedia Commons. That’s it!

By getting involved in the competition you are helping to document Pakistan’s rich cultural heritage for current and future generations, and helping to contribute towards the expansion of free knowledge for all. Additionally, by participating in the Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan competition, you may be eligible to win a fantastic cash prize and even become part of a growing community that believes in making knowledge freely available to all.

The Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan website gives detailed instructions on how one can participate. I’m very excited to welcome everyone to participate in the first edition of the Pakistani competition; whether you’re a professional or amateur photographer or someone who has never engaged in photography before.

Wiki Love Monuments Pakistan launches on 1 September. To find out about Wiki Loves Monuments in your country, check out the 2014 website.

A new course on Open Research at the School of Open

Creative Commons, August 25, 2014 03:58 PM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

The following is a guest post by Beck Pitt, researcher at the Open University’s OER Research Hub. We are collaborating with Beck and her team to investigate attitudes towards sharing educational resources online and the impact of School of Open courses.

Are you curious about what it means to research openly and what benefits it could have? Interested in how you can be open and ethical when conducting research? Wondering how openness could help raise the profile of your research? Thinking about the benefits of sharing reflections on your research?

The award-winning, Hewlett Foundation-funded OER Research Hub based at The Open University (UK) is pleased to announce its very own School of Open course in collaboration with the Peer 2 Peer University and Creative Commons. It opens for sign-up today at

Over six months in the making and peer-reviewed by the community, this new School of Open course offers the opportunity to explore the concept and practices of open research with participants from around the world. The course has been designed for any researcher who has an interest in utilizing open techniques and practices in their own research.

Join researchers Bea de los Arcos, Rob Farrow, Beck Pitt, and project manager Natalie Eggleston for this four-week course that explores what open research is and the issues involved around it, including: ethics, dissemination, reflection, and evaluation. The course starts Monday, 15 September 2014 and features its very own “Open Research” badge for course completion and participation.

To sign up, simply click the “Start Course” button on the lower left of the course page once you have signed into or registered for a account. Sign-up will remain open through Friday, 12 September.

About the OER Research Hub

The OER Research Hub is an international open research project examining the impact of open educational resources (OER) on learning and teaching practices. It works collaboratively with initiatives, projects and organisations around the world, disseminating its research and curating evidence for the impact of OER on its Impact Map.

About the School of Open


The School of Open is a global community of volunteers focused on providing free education opportunities on the meaning, application, and impact of “openness” in the digital age and its benefit to creative endeavors, education, and research. Volunteers develop and run online courses, offline workshops, and real world training programs on topics such as Creative Commons licenses, open educational resources, and sharing creative works. The School of Open is coordinated by Creative Commons and P2PU, a peer learning community for developing and running free online courses.

Przegląd linków CC #146

CC Poland, August 24, 2014 01:46 PM   License: Uznanie autorstwa 2.5 Polska

Otwarta edukacja

1. W piątek rządowy, darmowy i częściowo otwarty Nasz Elementarz miał trafić do szkół. Pani Minister nazwała go najbardziej przedyskutowanym podręcznikiem świata, cieszymy się, podręczniki powinny być ważnym elementem debaty publicznej. Z naszej strony możemy zagwarantować, że będziemy dalej podnosić ważny wątek skutecznego tworzenia i wspierania otwartych zasobów edukacyjnych ze środków publicznych.
Open Educational Resources distribution
2. Marcin Polak w serwisie EduNews pisze o tym dlaczego warto stosować wolne licencje podczas codziennej pracy w szkole. Przy okazji tłumaczy prosto jak wybrać licencję i zastosować ją do swojej pracy.

3.  Stosunek ceny do tego co (nie tylko treść, ale i dodatkowy potencjał) dostajemy od tradycyjnych, zamkniętych podręczników a od otwartych zasobów edukacyjnych?  David Wiley wyjaśnia jak można mierzyć wpływ i potencjał otwartych zasobów i otwartych podręczników na twardych danych finansowych.

4. Klaudia Grabowska, koordynatorka ds. otwartej nauki w Creative Commons Polska jest jedną z 15 osób wytypowanych do programu Open Leadership Fellows, zaawansowanego projektu rozwoju osób zaangażowanych w tworzenie polityk otwartości na całym świecie. Gratulujemy!

5. Słowo “open” w MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) zawsze budziło sporo kontrowersji, głównie dlatego, że większość z kursów w ten sposób dostępnych wcale nie udostępnia swoich zasobów jako otwartych. Teraz dodatkowo pojawia się pytanie jak długo takie kursy będą dostępne jako darmowe. Zastanawia się nad tym vice rektor ds. MOOC-ów  z Uniwersytetu Stanforda, prof. John Mitchell. Stanford jest jednym z liderów MOOC, oferując ich dotąd 240 kursów.

Otwarta kultura

6. Tomasz Ganicz, prezes stow. Wikimedia Polska pisze na łamach Historia i Media o tegorocznej edycji Wikimanii, a szczególnie o wątkach GLAM-owych podczas międzynarodowego spotkania wikipedystów. Dwa ważne i ciekawe watki, które pokazują zmiany jakie zachodzą w sektorze kultury i jego współpracy z otwartymi projektami to profesjonalizacja tych relacji oraz komercjalizacja w pod postacią dość kontrowersyjnego umożliwienia jawnych, odpłatnych edycji przez edytorów językowych projektów Wikipedii, których społeczność się na to zgodzi.

Otwarta nauka

7. Na łamach Guardiana apel, jeśli jesteś za otwartym dostępem do nauki wyraź to głośno. Erin McKiernan pisze wprost o ograniczaniu innowacji i rozwoju nauki przez płatny dostęp oraz większym potencjale rozwoju nowych, bardziej transparentnych metod recenzji naukowych w systemach otwartych.

8. Atletka po odkryciu u siebie kontuzji sama podjęła się odkrycia jej przyczyn i dzięki otwartemu dostępowi do wyników badań i danych genetycznych. Siła otwartej nauki w praktyce, jeśli nie przekonały kogoś argumenty z linku powyżej.

9. Otwarty dostęp jakkolwiek banalnie to brzmi otwiera bardzo dużo możliwości dla modelu dystrybucji i przyśpieszania praca badawczych. Czasopismo otwarte eLife udostępniło swoim autorom właśnie funkcję rozwijania i aktualizowania swoich artykułów o nowe materiały, które mają znaczenie naukowe, ale mogą być zbyt małe na nowy artykuł. Uaktualnienie będą tak samo recenzowane jak główne wyniki badań.

10. Najważniejsze trendy wydawnicze wg. naukowego potentata wydawnictwa Wiley? Poza od lat stopniowo porzucanym drukiem to globalny dostęp zamiast ograniczeń krajowych i dalszy rozwój otwartego dostępu.

11. Google Scholar, mniej znane od głównej wyszukiwarki, ale bardzo ważne w środowisku naukowym narzędzie wyszukiwania przechodzi lekkie przemiany, szczególnie w widoku dla autorów publikacji naukowych.

Otwarte oprogramowanie

12. Czasem warto zadbać nie tylko o samo wolne i otwarte oprogramowanie, ale również jego oprawę np. stronę internetową, która będzie je prezentować. Trek Głowacki prowadzi serwis Beautiful Open, kolekcję najładniejszych stron projektów open source (można zgłaszać mu nowe).

13. Programista Max Ogden pracuje nad rozwiązaniem o nazwie Dat, które ułatwiłoby, w szczególności administracji publicznej dzielenie się i aktualizowanie informacji we współpracy z aplikacjami tworzonymi na bazie informacji publicznych. Inspiracją dla Dat był GitHub pozwalający na łatwe śledzenie zmian w otwartym oprogramowaniu rozwijamy zdalnie przez wiele osób.


14. Google opublikowało najnowszy raport transparentności, z którego wynika, że przez ostatni rok ilość usuwanych linków w wyników wyszukiwarki z racji na zgłoszenie naruszenia praw autorskich wzrosła do 1 miliona dziennie. Liczba ta gwałtownie rośnie od 2012 roku, kiedy to wielu dostawców i pośredników zaczęła masowo wprowadzać automatyczne rozwiązania do zgłoszeń, które mają optymalizować proces, ale równocześnie powodują co raz więcej kontrowersji i problemów (np. automatycznej cenzury materiałów, które mieszczą się w ramach dozwolonego użytku w wielu krajach).

Otwarte zasoby

15. Przegląd stron z książkami z domeny publicznej przygotował Piotr Kowalczyk na blogu Ebook Friendly, oczywiście wśród 25 pozycji również polskie, Wolne Lektury.

16. Jeśli prowadzisz zajęcia na uczelni wyższej i szukasz prostego przeglądu jakie otwarte zasoby edukacyjne możesz polecić studentom lub wykorzystać do pracy z nimi to EdTechReview ma właśnie taki.

Announcing the Institute for Open Leadership Fellows

Creative Commons, August 21, 2014 11:26 PM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

Creative Commons and the Open Policy Network are pleased to announce the first round of fellows for the Institute for Open Leadership. The Institute is a training program to develop new leaders in education, science, public policy, and other fields on the values and implementation of openness in licensing, policies, and practices. We received over 90 applications from around the world and representing a broad diversity of fields. Here are the fellows for this year.

  • Dairo Alexander Escobar Ardila; Instituto Humboldt – SiB Colombia; Bogotá, Colombia
  • David Ernst; University of Minnesota; St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
  • Eric Phetteplace; California College of the Arts; Oakland, California, USA
  • Fátima Silva São Simão; UPTEC – Science and Technology Park of the University of Porto; Porto, Portugal
  • Georgia Angelaki, National Documentation Center/Hellenic Research Institute; Athens, Greece
  • Jagadish Chandra Aryal; Social Science Baha; Kathmandu, Nepal
  • Jane Gilvin; National Public Radio; Washington, D.C., USA
  • Julian Carver; Land Information New Zealand; Christchurch, New Zealand
  • Klaudia Grabowska; Polish History Museum; Warsaw, Poland
  • Mohamud Ahmed Rage; Ministry of Higher Education & Culture, Somalia; Mogadishu, Somalia
  • Nasir Khan; Management Information Services, Directorate General of Health Services, Bangladesh; Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • Paul UE Blackman; Barbados Community College; St. Michael, Barbados
  • Vincent Kizza; Open Learning Exchange Uganda; Kampala, Uganda
  • Werner Westermann Juarez; Instituto Profesional Providencia, Santiago, Chile

The in-person portion of the Institute will take place in San Francisco, California in January 2015. The fellows will be develop, refine, and work to implement a capstone open policy project. The point of this project is for the fellow to transform the concepts learned at the Institute into a practical, actionable, and sustainable initiative within her/his institution.

Congratulations to the fellows, and thank you to all the applicants.

Otwarty dostęp do kultury we Francji

CC Poland, August 20, 2014 09:39 AM   License: Uznanie autorstwa 2.5 Polska


Cyfrowa jesień

Oficjalnie, wszystko zaczęło się 7 listopada 2013 roku – tego dnia francuska ministra kultury i komunikacji, Aurélie Filippetti, ogłosiła uruchomienie rządowego programu l’Automne numérique (dos. cyfrowa jesień), poświęconego edukacji cyfrowej i artystycznej oraz e-demokratyzacji kultury. Ministra Filippetti, w krótkim video obwieszczającym otwarcie programu, mówi o związku cyfryzacji i kultury, wadze innowacji w tym sektorze i przyszłości młodych. Zwraca się bezpośrednio do obywateli społeczeństwa informacyjnego, przełamując administracyjne standardy.

Inauguracja projektu miała miejsce podczas konferencji pt. “Przemiany kultury w erze cyfrowej”, poświęconej cyfrowej kulturze i sztuce, otwartości danych, cyfryzacji i otwartości publicznych instytucji kultury. W konferencji wzięli udział przedstawiciele biznesu cyfrowego (Microsoft), rządowych agend, muzeów, oraz instytucji pozarządowych, jak np. Open Knowledge Foundation. Konferencja moderowana była przez szefa departamentu cyfrowego Ministerstwa Kultury i Komunikacji, jednego z głównych inicjatorów l’Automne numérique, Camille’a Domange.

W tym samym miesiącu odbyły się jeszcze dwa ważne eventy, także zorganizowane przez francuskie Ministerstwo Kultury i Komunikacji.  Pierwszym był kreatywny mash-up – kilkudniowa impreza, której uczestnicy, pod okiem studentów francuskiej Narodowej Szkoły Projektowania (ENSCI), w twórczy sposób odkrywali na nowo dzieła należące do domeny publicznej. Drugim wydarzeniem był pierwszy rządowy Hackaton – festiwal start-upowy, podczas którego programiści, designerzy i ludzie kultury mieli okazję połączyć się w drużyny, by tworzyć aplikacje i start-upy, związane z kulturą i sztuką.

L’Automne numerique miała być jednak czymś więcej niż cyklem eventów. Program jest w założeniu elementem innowacyjnej polityki kulturalnej francuskiego resortu, stawiającym konkretne postulaty, z których część istotnie doczekała się realizacji.

Aurelie Filippetti

Ministra Kultury i Komunikacji, Aurelie Filippetii

Otwieranie zasobów

Przede wszystkim l’Automne numérique ogłosiła hasło otwierania dostępu do publicznych zasobów kultury. Ministerstwo zadeklarowało udostępnienie materiałów rządowych portali (serwisu promującego upublicznienie kultury) oraz (strony Ministerstwa).

Faktycznie, duża część materiałów na zamieszczona została na licencji CC-BY-SA 3.0 FR oraz otwartej licencji Etalab – tak jak teksty, zdjęcia, metadane, statystyki i sama struktura witryny. Jednak najbardziej atrakcyjna część contentu, czyli multimedia, wciąż objęta jest tradycyjną, restrykcyjną regulacją prawnoautorską. Identycznie przedstawia się sytuacja prawna strony Ministerstwa.

Historyczne partnerstwo

Mimo to, uznanie przez rządową agendę otwartych licencji jest ważnym faktem dla francuskiej kultury, i kultury w ogóle – kto wie, może stanie się wzorem dla innych europejskich krajów, w tym Polski? Istotne jest również to, że w celu rozpowszechniania wiedzy na temat licencji Creative Commons, francuskie Ministerstwo Kultury i Komunikacji zawarło partnerstwo z organizacją Creative Commons Francja. Partnerstwo objęło cykl szkoleń z zakresu otwartych licencji, adresowanych do publicznych instytucji kultury oraz młodzieży. Na rządowych witrynach obejrzeć można edukacyjne video Creative Commons Francja, wprowadzające w tematykę licencji CC.

Drugie ważne dla otwartej kultury partnerstwo zostało zawarte między Ministerstwem Kultury i Komunikacji a Open Knowledge Foundation Francja (Fundacją Otwartej Wiedzy). Współpraca ma polegać na utworzeniu „kalkulatora” francuskiej domeny publicznej  - narzędzia pozwalającego na identyfikowanie sytuacji prawnej dzieł w zależności od systemu prawnego wybranego państwa, a zwłaszcza obliczenie czasu, jaki pozostał do przejścia dzieła do domeny publicznej (ustawowy czas ochrony prawnoautorskiej jest różny w różnych krajach). Kalkulator dostępny jest już pod adresem , a treści, które udostępnia, publikowane są na licencji CC0 3.0 FR. Ponadto, Ministerstwo Kultury i Komunikacji obiecuje doprecyzowanie pojęcia domeny publicznej w przyszłej nowelizacji prawa autorskiego.

Dolina Krzemowa nad Sekwaną

Program l’Automne numérique uwieńczony został przez projekt  Silicon Valois (Dolina Krzemowa). W ciągu 15 majowych dni 2014 roku, budynek francuskiego Ministerstwa Kultury i Komunikacji przy ulicy Saint-Honore w Paryżu stał otworem dla artystów, programistów, grafików, start-upowców i twórczej młodzieży. Na tej swoistej platformie współpracy, uczestnicy mogli wymieniać się poglądami, zawiązywać znajomości, tworzyć wspólne projekty. Wszyskto pod opieką minister Aurélie Filippetti i przedstawicieli różnych organizacji, z Creative Commons Francja i Open Knowledge Foundation na czele.

Francuski program otwierania publicznych zasobów i partnerstwo rządowe z Creative Commons Francja i Open Knowledge Foundation jest dużym osiągnięciem wolnej kultury, co podkreślają w swoich oświadczeniach obie organizacje. Świadczy o zrozumieniu wagi swobodnego dostępu do twórczości dla społeczeństwa demokratycznego i dobrostanu obywateli, a także o wdrażaniu przez francuski rząd polityki otwartości na coraz szerszą skalę. W tym kontekście nie bez znaczenia jest fakt dołączenia Francji do OGP (Open Government Partnership – światowej organizacji na rzecz otwartego rządzenia), w kwietniu bieżącego roku. Miejmy nadzieję, że na samym dołączeniu się nie skończy, ponieważ w kwestii uwalniania obiegu kultury wciąż jest jeszcze wiele do zrobienia. I to nie tylko na gruncie francuskim!


1 Silicon Valois, zdjęcie dostępne na stronie na licencji CC-BY-SA 2.0

2 Aurelie Filipetti, zdjęcie dostępne na stronie na licencji CC-BY-SA 2.0

Agoric Aesthetics & Philosophy

Rob Myers, August 20, 2014 06:51 AM   License: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Agorizing aesthetics and philosophy means producing them using market pricing mechanisms. The model for this is the market-based software of agoric computing. The advantage of such a system is that it incentivises both production and efficiency. By internalizing market forces, the perverse incentives of gamified systems such as academic research points can be avoided.

An agoric system needs a currency, for efficiency’s sake we will use a cryptocurrency. There are several ways of implementing a currency for an agoric system using cryptocurrency systems. We can use coloured coins, nxt or Counterparty assets, or Ethereum contracts similar to the Token System example in the Ethereum White Paper to create coins, tokens, or other quantifiable valences. For simplicity’s sake I will call all of these “tokens”. Different implementations allow different capabilities: fungibility, revocation, transferrability.

An artist group or artistic movement can use a store of tokens allocated by vote or other mechanism to artists or artworks that they deem part of the movement and its output. The Cypherfunks project is an existing example of such a system. Such a system combines the nominative practices of Dadaist, Conceptual and some Pop/Post-Pop art with the social and aesthetic function of materially identifying in and out groups. A single-artist token could be used to create an oeuvre in the style of Duchamp or Kostabi.

Art critics can use tokens to embody critique. A single-value token can be used to embody critical approval, a pair of oppositely valanced tokens to represent approval/opprobrium (and to revise critical opinion should it later change), a family of tokens with different star rankings can be used to implement a star system at the cost of fungibility. The critic sends tokens either to the artist’s address in the cryptocurrency system or to an address representing the hash or proxy hash of the artwork. The artist or artwork’s standing can be found by counting the number and kind of critical tokens associated with it.

Philosophical treatises can be constructed agorically. Axioms and citations, logical and rhetorical moves can be assigned point costs either as classes (premise, objection, rebuttal) or individually (Derrida, Arendt, Meillassoux). Each usage increases the price of the essay. Point costs and budgets can be assigned per hundred words or for a given form (short essay, review, thesis, journal article etc.) or context (particular journals, web sites, or educational institutions). Essays are then written to the budget. Or price essays according to the system and then let publishers (and readers) choose which to consume on that basis. For a more dynamic system prices can be set using a PageRank-style system as a product of the cost of cited works.

Pricing this essay is left as an exercise for the reader…

Examining deficiencies of and limitations on data sharing

Creative Commons, August 18, 2014 04:20 PM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

Whether patients, or part of traffic, or exercising or simply walking with one of the behavioral trackers du jour, we are constantly giving data about ourselves and our surroundings to data collecters with few returns. From privacy regulations to bureaucratic barriers to collecting and locking up information just in case it might create monetary value in the future, there are a multitude of barriers between those who collect information and those who want to use it.

With support from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), we are launching two projects exploring different aspects that often get in the way of easy sharing of citizen-sourced information.

Sharing v. Privacy


Original image by Puneet Kishor released under a CC0 Public Domain Dedication

In collaboration with the Institute for Human Genetics and EngageUC at UCSF, and Personal Genome Project at Harvard University, we will explore the practical, ethical and legal implications of emphasizing benefits of sharing over the need for privacy at a workshop planned for Spring 2015 in Washington DC. A few of the questions to be tackled at the workshop: What if, instead of emphasizing the imperative of protecting privacy, we emphasized the potential benefits from sharing? Would most patients agree to let their information be shared? more →

Sensored City


Original image by Puneet Kishor released under a CC0 Public Domain Dedication

Partnering with Manylabs, a San Francisco-based sensor tools and education nonprofit, and Urban Matter, Inc., a Brooklyn-based design studio, and in collaboration with the City of Louisville, Kentucky, and Propeller Health, maker of a mobile platform for respiratory health management, we will design, develop and install a network of sensor-based hardware that will collect environmental information at high temporal and spatial scales and store it in a software platform designed explicitly for storing and retrieving such data.

Further, we will design, create and install a public data art installation that will be powered by the data we collect thereby communicating back to the public what has been collected about them. more →


Silent Lights Image © Urban Matter, Inc., used with permission.

Please follow our progress on Sharing v. Privacy and the Sensored City projects, and get in touch with us if you want to learn more.

Τα ανοιχτής πρόσβασης επιστημονικά περιοδικά κερδίζουν περισσότερη επισκεψιμότητα και αναφορές

CC Greece, August 18, 2014 12:00 PM   License: Αναφορά Δημιουργού 3.0 Ελλάδα

Τα επιστημονικά άρθρα που έχουν ανοιχτή πρόσβαση διαβάζονται και αναφέρονται πιο συχνά από ό, τι τα άρθρα που είναι διαθέσιμα μόνο σε συνδρομητές.

Το  Research Information Network ανέλυσε την ηλεκτρονική επισκεψιμότητα σε περισσότερα από 700 άρθρα που δημοσιεύονται στο επιστημονικό περιοδικό Nature Communications κατά τους πρώτους έξι μήνες του 2013.

Η Επιτροπή διαπίστωσε ότι, μετά από 180 ημέρες, τα άρθρα των οποίων οι συγγραφείς είχαν δώσει ανοικτή πρόσβαση είχαν επισκεψιμότητα πάνω από δύο φορές πιο συχνά από αυτά που είναι προσβάσιμα μόνο στους συνδρομητές του περιοδικού.

Μια περαιτέρω ανάλυση με πάνω από 2.000 έγγραφα που δημοσιεύεται στο Nature Communications μεταξύ Απριλίου 2010 και Ιούνιο του 2013 αποκάλυψε ότι τα άρθρα ανοικτής πρόσβασης αναφέρθηκαν, κατά μέσο όρο 11 φορές, σε σύγκριση με ένα μέσο όρο των επτά αναφορών για συνδρομητές. Η μελέτη καταλήγει στο συμπέρασμα ότι τα έγγραφα ανοικτής πρόσβασης απολαύνουν ένα “μικρό” πλεονέκτημα παραπομπής σε όλους τους κλάδους εκτός από τη χημεία.

Ο εκτελεστικός διευθυντής Michael Jubb του Research Information Network είπε ότι «ο αυξανόμενος όγκος της βιβλιογραφίας δείχνει ότι η ανοικτή πρόσβαση είναι καλή για τις παραπομπές του άρθρου και, ειδικότερα, σε online visibility”.

“Εμείς δεν ήμασταν σε θέση να ελέγξουμε όλους τους παράγοντες που μπορούν να επηρεάσουν τις απόψεις και τις αναφορές, όπως το αν τα άρθρα είχαν αναρτηθεί σε ένα η περισσότερα αποθετήρια ή τους αριθμούς και τις θέσεις των συγγραφέων, αλλά είμαστε σίγουροι ότι η ανάλυση δείχνει ότι η ανοικτή πρόσβαση έχει θετικά αποτελέσματα τόσο για τους συγγραφείς όσο και για τους αναγνώστες. “

Σχεδόν το 38 τοις εκατό των άρθρων του Nature Communications που δημοσιεύθηκε από την έναρξή του το 2010 μέχρι τα μέσα του 2013 ήταν ανοικτής πρόσβασης. Το υψηλότερο ποσοστό (41 τοις εκατό) ήταν στις βιολογικές επιστήμες και το χαμηλότερο (30 τοις εκατό), στη χημεία. Ωστόσο, η αναλογία των εγγράφων ανοικτής πρόσβασης στις βιολογικές επιστήμες μειώθηκε από 59 τοις εκατό το 2010 σε 34 τοις εκατό, κατά το πρώτο εξάμηνο του 2013.

Εδώ μπορείτε να δείτε τη μελέτη και εδώ τα δεδομένα (data).


Przegląd linków CC #145

CC Poland, August 16, 2014 08:49 PM   License: Uznanie autorstwa 2.5 Polska

Otwarta edukacja

1. Boundless staje się powoli synonimem komercyjnego sukcesu otwartych zasobów edukacyjnych, niewątpliwie zajęli się rynkiem o wyjątkowo wysokich cenach, który o lat szukał alternatyw dla drogich podręczników. Boundless potrafi jednak również świetnie tłumaczyć jak i dlaczego działają oraz na czym polega problem, który jako firma starają się rozwiązać zarabiając równocześnie.

2. Wikipedia i edukacja, czyli relacja z tegorocznej Wikimanii i wydarzenia satelickiego poświęconego otwartej edukacji na blogu Open Knowledge Foundation. Jedną z ważnych nowości jest powstanie Open Coaltion, która ma zająć się wspieraniem organizacji zajmujących się szeroko pojętą otwartością zasobów w różnych dziedzinach, jednym jej pierwszych działań jest stworzenie poradnika dobrych praktyk dla organizacji i grup organizujących otwarte, społecznościowe projekty.

3. Cześć z Was (zapewne ta bardziej bibliotekarska) zainteresowana metadanymi pewnie z ciekawością przeczyta studium wdrożenia standardu LRMI (Learning Resource Metadata Initiative) w kolejnym serwisie. Tym razem Lorna Campbell pisze o MERLOT, repozytorium metadanych zawierającym rekordy 46.000 otwartych zasobów edukacyjnych.

Otwarta nauka

4. Niedawno zakończona Wikimania, doroczna konferencja wikipedystów z całego świata była okazją do dyskusji na temat każdej dziedziny, w której otwarty model współpracy oraz otwarte zasoby wiedzy mają znaczenie. Jednym z tych obszarów jest nauka. a w szczególności to jak może ona skorzystać w poszerzaniu dostępu do wyników badań oraz przyśpieszania ich wykorzystania. Cameron Neylon na łamach blogu London School of Economics rozważa jak nauka cierpi na używaniu do publikowania przestarzałych i nieekonomicznych form dystrybucji czyli tradycyjnych wydawnictw i czasopism.

5. Ciąg dalszy historii z nowymi pseudo-otwartymi licencjami dla artykułów naukowych. Tym razem głos zabrał Glynn Moody, który przypomina historię podobnych przypadków w historii prób zawłaszczania i rozpraszania osiągnięć wolnej kultury.

6. A gdyby ktoś miał wątpliwości, to PLOS Blog oferuje krótkie podsumowanie tego jak dużo już jest artykułów naukowych opublikowanych na licencjach Creative Commons (co najmniej 1,2 miliona, z czego 720 000 na CC BY). Wniosek jest prosty, CC jest już bardzo silnym standardem prawnym dla otwartego dostępu.

7. Na marginesie otwartego dostępu. Jak i dlaczego badacze używają mediów społecznościowych? Nawet trochę zabawne.

Otwarte zasoby

8. Fotopedia, serwis fotograficzny skupiający się na fotografiach turystycznych, który oferował możliwość publikowania na licencjach CC zamyka się. Amerykańskie Creative Commons zabrało się za zarchiwizowanie zasobów na otwartych licencjach.

9. Clio to nowy serwis oferujący możliwość przeglądania informacji historycznych np. o zabytkach i wydarzeniach w sposób geograficzny czyli przy pomocy mapy. Choć projekt ma być społecznościowy, na razie działa na bardzo restrykcyjnej licencji CC BY NC ND. W pełni wolne i zgodne np. z licencją Wikipedii są za to nasze rodzime Otwarte Zabytki.

Souvenirs du theatre anglais a Paris

10. Folger Shakespeare Library posiada w swojej cyfrowej kolekcji ponad 80 000 obrazów i grafik związanych z Williamem Szekspirem i jego twórczością, właśnie „uwolniła” do domeny publicznej (choć na licencji CC BY-SA).  Kolekcja składa się z ilustracji do dramatów i książek o dziełach Szekspira, rysunków ze sztuk teatralnych, zdjęć strojów i rekwizytów teatralnych, a także skanów innych książek i starodruków zebranych w kolekcji tej prywatnej biblioteki.

Otwarte oprogramowanie

11. o przyczynach małej skali wykorzystywania wolnego i otwartego oprogramowania przez administrację publiczną oraz o tym jakie mogą być z takiego wykorzystania dla niej korzyści.

12. Jakby w odpowiedzi na powyższy wpis, GitHub, platforma otwartej publikacji kodu podsumowuje ile kont na niej posiada administracja publiczna i jak używa serwisu.


13. Głośna reforma prawa autorskiego w Hiszpanii oznacza poważne zagrożenie również dla wolnej kultury, otwartych zasobów i edukacji. Renata Avila z CC Hiszpania pisze o ograniczeniach jakie nowe prawo wprowadza do dzielenia się zasobami w sieci oraz o tym jak pogarsza ono sytuację uniwersytetów, które muszą płacić organizacjom zbiorowego zarządzania za użytek edukacyjny.

Ilustracja: Souvenirs du theatre anglais a Paris, kolekcja Folger Shakespeare Library, lic. CC BY-SA 4.0.

So you’ve invented fantasy football, now what?

James Boyle, August 16, 2014 10:13 AM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

We are posting excerpts from our new coursebook Intellectual Property: Law and the Information Society which will be published in two weeks is out now! It will be is of course  freely downloadable, and sold in paper for about $135 less than other casebooks.  (And yes, it will include  discussions  of whether one should ever use the term “intellectual property.” )  The book is full of practice examples..  This is one from Chapter One, on the theories behind intellectual property: “What if you came up with the idea of Fantasy Football?”  No legal knowledge necessary.  Why don’t you test your argumentative abilities…?  CoverConcept03b

(Book Coming Soon!  Book Out now!  Needless to say, in this and all exercises in the book, the facts are either entirely made up or significantly altered to generate a better discussion]

Problem 1-2

Justifying and Limiting.

It is early in the days of the web and you and your friends have just had a great idea. You are avid football fans, fond of late night conversations about which team is really the best, which player the most productive at a particular position. Statistics are thrown about. Bragging is compulsory. Unlike other casual fans, you do not spend all your time rooting for a particular team. Your enjoyment comes from displaying your knowledge of all the players and all the teams, using statistics to back up your claims of superiority and inferiority. You find these conversations pleasant, but frustrating. How can one determine definitively who wins or loses these debates? Then you have a collective epiphany. With a computer, the raft of statistics available on football players could be harvested to create imaginary teams of players, “drafted” from every team in the league, that would be matched against each other each week according to a formula that combined all the statistics into a single measure of whether your team “won” or “lost” as against all your friends’ choices. By adding in prices that reflected how “expensive” it was to choose a particular player, one could impose limits on the tendency to pick a team composed only of superstars. Instead, the game would reward those who can find the diamond in the rough, available on the cheap, who know to avoid the fabled player who is actually past his best and prone to injury.

At first, you gather at the home of the computer-nerd in your group, who has managed to write the software to make all this happen. Then you have a second epiphany. Put this online and everyone could have their own team—you decide to call them FANtasy Football Teams, to stress both their imaginary nature and the intensity of the football-love that motivates those who play. Multiple news and sports sites already provide all the basic facts required: the statistics of yardage gained, sacks, completed passes and so on. The NFL offers an “official” statistics site, but many news outlets collect their own statistics. It is trivial to write a computer program to look up those statistics automatically and drop them into the FANtasy game. Even better, the nature of a global network makes the markets for players more efficient while allowing national and even global competition among those playing the game. The global network means that the players never need to meet in reality. FANtasy Football Leagues can be organized for each workplace or group of former college friends. Because the football players you draft come from so many teams, there is always a game to keep track of and bragging to be done on email or around the water cooler.

FANtasy Football is an enormous success. You and your friends are in the middle of negotiations with Yahoo! to make it the exclusive FANtasy Football League network, when you receive a threatening letter from the NFL. They claim that you are “stealing” results and statistics from NFL games, unfairly enriching yourself from an activity that the league stages at the cost of millions of dollars. They say they are investigating their legal options and, if current law provides them no recourse, that they will ask Congress to pass a law prohibiting unlicensed fantasy sports leagues. (Later we will discuss the specific legal claims that might actually be made against you under current law.) As this drama is playing out, you discover that other groups of fans have adapted the FANtasy Football idea to baseball and basketball and that those leagues are also hugely popular.

i.) Your mission now is to lay out the ethical, utilitarian or economic arguments that you might make in support of your position that what you are doing should not be something the NFL can control or limit—whether they seek to prohibit you, or merely demand that you pay for a license. What might the NFL say in support of its position or its proposed law?

ii.) Should you be able to stop the “copycat” fantasy leagues in baseball and basketball? To demand royalties from them? Why? Are these arguments consistent with those you made in answer to question i.)?  Read the Locke excerpt (below) before you answer the questions.

John Locke, Of Property

Two Treatises on Government

§ 26. Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody has any right to but himself. The “labour” of his body and the “work” of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this “labour” being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.

§ 27. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask, then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? And it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common. That added something to them more than Nature, the common mother of all, had done, and so they became his private right. And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus appropriated because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature leaves it in, which begins the property, without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus, the grass my horse has bit, the turfs my servant has cut, and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property without the assignation or consent of anybody. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them. . . .

§ 29. Thus this law of reason makes the deer that Indian’s who hath killed it; it is allowed to be his goods who hath bestowed his labour upon it, though, before, it was the common right of every one. And amongst those who are counted the civilised part of mankind, who have made and multiplied positive laws to determine property, this original law of Nature for the beginning of property, in what was before common, still takes place, and by virtue thereof, what fish any one catches in the ocean, that great and still remaining common of mankind; or what amber-gris any one takes up here is by the labour that removes it out of that common state Nature left it in, made his property who takes that pains about it. And even amongst us, the hare that any one is hunting is thought his who pursues her during the chase. For being a beast that is still looked upon as common, and no man’s private possession, whoever has employed so much labour about any of that kind as to find and pursue her has thereby removed her from the state of Nature wherein she was common, and hath begun a property.

§ 30. It will, perhaps, be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns or other fruits of the earth, etc., makes a right to them, then any one may engross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The same law of Nature that does by this means give us property, does also bound that property too. “God has given us all things richly.” Is the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration? But how far has He given it us “to enjoy”? As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in. Whatever is beyond this is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. And thus considering the plenty of natural provisions there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders, and to how small a part of that provision the industry of one man could extend itself and engross it to the prejudice of others, especially keeping within the bounds set by reason of what might serve for his use, there could be then little room for quarrels or contentions about property so established.

§ 31. But the chief matter of property being now not the fruits of the earth and the beasts that subsist on it, but the earth itself, as that which takes in and carries with it all the rest, I think it is plain that property in that too is acquired as the former. As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, enclose it from the common. Nor will it invalidate his right to say everybody else has an equal title to it, and therefore he cannot appropriate, he cannot enclose, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners, all mankind. God, when He gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the penury of his condition required it of him. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth—i.e., improve it for the benefit of life and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that, in obedience to this command of God, subdued, tilled, and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him.

§ 32. Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

§ 33. God gave the world to men in common, but since He gave it them for their benefit and the greatest conveniencies of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed He meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational (and labour was to be his title to it); not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious. He that had as good left for his improvement as was already taken up needed not complain, ought not to meddle with what was already improved by another’s labour; if he did it is plain he desired the benefit of another’s pains, which he had no right to, and not the ground which God had given him, in common with others, to labour on, and whereof there was as good left as that already possessed, and more than he knew what to do with, or his industry could reach to.

§ 34. It is true, in land that is common in England or any other country, where there are plenty of people under government who have money and commerce, no one can enclose or appropriate any part without the consent of all his fellow commoners; because this is left common by compact—i.e., by the law of the land, which is not to be violated. And, though it be common in respect of some men, it is not so to all mankind, but is the joint propriety of this country, or this parish. Besides, the remainder, after such enclosure, would not be as good to the rest of the commoners as the whole was, when they could all make use of the whole; whereas in the beginning and first peopling of the great common of the world it was quite otherwise. The law man was under was rather for appropriating. God commanded, and his wants forced him to labour. That was his property, which could not be taken from him wherever he had fixed it. And hence subduing or cultivating the earth and having dominion, we see, are joined together. The one gave title to the other. So that God, by commanding to subdue, gave authority so far to appropriate. And the condition of human life, which requires labour and materials to work on, necessarily introduce private possessions.


1.) Which side in Problem 1-2 can appeal to Locke’s arguments? The NFL? The FANtasy Football Players? Both? Find the passage that supports your answers.

2.) Should Locke’s argument apply to information goods? Why? Why not?

3.) Locke talks about a realm that is “left common by compact.” What does this consist of in the realm of information? Would Locke imagine that private property needs to be introduced to the “great common” of the information world, just as it was to the wilderness?

Szeroka koalicja protestuje przeciw nowym licencjom wydawców

CC Poland, August 13, 2014 06:22 AM   License: Uznanie autorstwa 2.5 Polska

7 sierpnia, 57 organizacji podpisało list otwarty do Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (stowarzyszenia zrzeszającego wydawców naukowych, technicznych i medycznych), krytykujący wydawców za tworzenie własnych licencji do publikowania artykułów naukowych. Sygnatariusze listu dowodzą, że wbrew nazwie (stowarzyszenie używa terminu “Open Access” na opisanie tych licencji), licencje te ograniczają możliwość wykorzystania wyników badań i są sprzeczne ze standardami otwartego dostępu.

Podstawowa krytyka nowych licencji dotyczy faktu, że nie są one kompatybilne z istniejącymi licencjami stosowanymi na rzecz Open Access, w tym w szczególności z licencjami Creative Commons. Proponowane licencje nie są także zgodne z definicjami otwartych licencji (takimi jak Open Definition czy Free Cultural Works Definition), ani też ze standardami licencjonowania w modelu Open Access, określonymi przez Budapest Open Access Initiative. W szczególności, licencje ograniczają użycie komercyjne oraz możliwość tworzenia utworów zależnych. Licencje są napisane w sposób niejasny i rodzą wątpliwości, co do zakresu licencjonowanych praw.

Dodatkowo, licencje udzielają zgody na użycia utworów, na których zgoda nie jest potrzebna – takie jak linkowanie do utworu. Licencjonują również prawo do eksploracji danych i tekstu (text and data mining), działań objętych w niektórych krajach dozwolonym użytkiem (i odpowiednio uregulowanych w licencjach Creative Commons).

Licencje STM są więc nie tylko przykładem niepotrzebnego “mnożenia bytów” – wprowadzania różnorodnych licencji, co rodzi kłopoty tak dla licencjonujących, jak i dla licencjobiorców. To także przykład “open washing” – rozmywania idei otwartości, tworzenia zamkniętych rozwiązań pod hasłem zapewniania “Open Access”.

Sygnatariusze wzywają wydawców, by wycofali nowe licencje i w zamian zaczęli stosować licencje Creative Commons – będące globalnym standardem otwartego licencjonowania. Mamy nadzieję, że także w Polsce nowe licencje STM nie będą stosowane.

List został podpisany zarówno przez Centrum Cyfrowe, jak i przez stowarzyszenie COMMUNIA i koalicję Copyright for Creativity (których jesteśmy członkiem). Wśród sygnatariuszy znajdują się wydawnictwa, organizacje bibliotekarskie i edukacyjne oraz organizacje pozarządowe.

Zachęcamy do zapoznania się z listem, oraz ze wpisem na stronie Creative Commons, tłumaczącym dokładniej problemy z licencjami STM.

Rijksmuseum: Ο διαμοιρασμός ελεύθερων, χωρίς περιορισμούς εικόνων υψηλής ποιότητας κάνει καλό

CC Greece, August 11, 2014 12:00 PM   License: Αναφορά Δημιουργού 3.0 Ελλάδα

Η Europeana δημοσίευσε πρόσφατα μια σημαντική μελέτη περίπτωσης που συνοψίζει την εμπειρία του ολλανδικού Rijksmuseum σχετικά με το άνοιγμα της πρόσβασης στη συλλογή των ψηφιακών τους εικόνων, οι οποίες ανήκουν πλέον στον δημόσιο τομέα. Η μελέτη περίπτωσης γράφτηκε από τον Joris Pekel, συντονιστή της κοινότητας για την πολιτιστική κληρονομιά της Europeana. Κατά τη διάρκεια των τελευταίων ετών, η Europeana έχει συνεργαστεί με το Rijksmuseum, προκειμένου να διατεθούν στον Δημόσιο Τομέα εικόνες των έργων του, στην καλύτερη δυνατή ποιότητα.

Η έκθεση εξετάζει την αρχική πρόθεση του Rijksmuseum να διαθέσει δημόσια τις εικόνες των έργων του. Το μουσείο σκόπευε αρχικά να διαθέτει τα ψηφιακά αντίγραφα των έργων του με μια ανοικτή άδεια, όπως η άδεια Creative Commons Αναφορά (CC BY). Σύντομα, όμως, πείστηκε από την προσπάθεια των οργανώσεων που υποστηρίζουν την ανοικτή, απεριόριστη πρόσβαση κι έτσι, το Rijksmuseum άρχισε να ανοίγει τις συλλογές του περισσότερο, επιλέγοντας τη χρήση της Άδειας CC0 Εκχώρηση στον Δημόσιο Τομέα για τα ψηφιακά αντίγραφα των έργων του.

Το Rijksmuseum άρχισε να πειραματίζεται με το πώς θα προσφέρει υψηλής ποιότητας αντίγραφα των έργων στο Δημόσιο Τομέα. Το μουσείο υιοθέτησε μια προσέγγιση σύμφωνη με τον σκοπό και την «αποστολή του» και το προσωπικό κατανόησε την ευκαιρία να αναδείξει τα καλύτερα εκθέματα της συλλογής του μουσείου ως εργαλείο προώθησης. Το τμήμα μάρκετινγκ υποστήριξε ότι “… Ο βασικός στόχος του μουσείου είναι να κάνει τη συλλογή γνωστή στο κοινό όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο… [και] το ψηφιακό αντίγραφο του κάθε έργου θα κεντρίσει το ενδιαφέρον του κοινού για αυτό, οδηγώντας το στο μουσείο για να δει το πρωτότυπο.” Το Rijksmuseum συνειδητοποίησε, επίσης, ότι με την ελεύθερη διάθεση υψηλής ποιότητας ψηφιακών αντιγράφων των έργων, θα μπορούσε να εκπαιδεύσει το κοινό δίνοντας τα ακριβή χρώματα και μεταδεδομένα για τα έργα.

Αντί να ανησυχεί για το αν η ελεύθερη διάθεση υψηλής ποιότητας ψηφιακών αντιγράφων των έργων τέχνης θα εξαφανίσει ένα μέρος των εσόδων του, το Rijksmuseum υιοθέτησε αρχικά μια ενδιάμεση λύση. Έκανε διαθέσιμες τις εικόνες σε δύο μεγέθη: οι . Jpg εικόνες σε περίπου 4500 × 4500 pixels ήταν δωρεάν, ενώ τα τεράστια αρχεία tiff των 200MB διατέθηκαν προς € 40. Το μουσείο είδε μια σταθερή αύξηση των εσόδων από τις πωλήσεις των εικόνων, αλλά τελικά αποφάσισε να παραιτηθεί από αυτήν την κλιμακωτή διάθεση. Από τον Οκτώβριο του 2013, το Rijksmuseum διαθέτει εντελών ανοικτά κι ελεύθερα την καλύτερη δυνατή ποιότητα ψηφιακών αντιγράφων των έργων του.

Το Rijksmuseum έχει βρει τον τρόπο να υποστηρίξει την ευρεία πρόσβαση στην πλούσια συλλογή των πόρων της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς που διαθέτει. Και αυτό γίνεται με τέτοιο τρόπο που προσελκύει το ενδιαφέρον από νέα κοινά, ισοσταθμίζοντας το κόστος και υποστηρίζοντας τις αρχές της απεριόριστης πρόσβασης στον ψηφιακό Δημόσιο Τομέα.

Δείτε εδώ την αναλυτική μελέτη περίπτωσης.

Przegląd linków CC #144

CC Poland, August 10, 2014 09:13 PM   License: Uznanie autorstwa 2.5 Polska

Otwarta edukacja

1. Campus Technology opracowało bardzo prosty, praktyczny (i ładny) przewodnik po otwartych zasobach edukacyjnych. Przewodnik zaczyna się od naszego ulubionego tematu, o którym niebawem usłyszycie więcej czyli od rozwiewania wątpliwości i mitów na temat otwartych zasobów.
Campus Technology OER Guide

2. Najbardziej znane otwarte zasoby edukacyjne powstają w języku angielskim, co z pozostałymi językami? LangOER przeprowadził badania występowania otwartych zasobów w 23 językach w tym polskim.

3. OpenStax, wydawnictwo publikujące otwarte podręczniki akademickie zaczyna adaptować je do poziomu szkoły wyższej. E-podręczniki będą dostępna razem z narzędziami do analizy postępu i modeli uczenia oraz systemem rekomendacji.

4. Konstruktywnie o ograniczeniach otwartych zasobów edukacyjnych i o pomysłach na usprawnianie modelu ich praktycznej oceny przez nauczycieli i edukatorów, którzy chcą korzystać z nich na co dzień, ale obawiają się o ich jakość.

5. 2 września na uniwersytecie Stanforda rusza kurs online OpenKnowledge o tym jak otwarte oprogramowanie, otwarte zasoby i dane kształtują przyszłość edukacji, a w szczególności jak budują one ideę otwartej wiedzy czyli niwelowania globalnych nierówności w dostępie do wiedzy i edukacji (nie tylko prawnych).

6. Niemiecka Wikimedia ogłosiła już program drugiej konferencji OER Konferenz, choć tematycznie skupiać się będzie na otwartości zasobów edukacyjnych w Niemczech, to w programie sporo o innych krajach. Polskę będą reprezentować Alek Tarkowski (CC Polska) i Michał “rysiek” Woźniak (Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania).

7. Rob Farrow  na łamach blogu London School Of Economics pisze o mapie  oddziaływania otwartych zasobów edukacyjnych na świecie. Jeśli nie odwiedziliście jeszcze strony tego świetnego projektu lub nie wiecie jak i dlaczego powstaje przeczytajcie koniecznie.

Otwarta nauka

8. Pisaliśmy już o serii pseudo-otwartych licencji dla publikacji naukowych zaproponowanych przez International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers. Kilka dni temu 58 organizacji naukowych i prawnych w tym Creative Commons wystosowało list do STM aby wycofało swoje licencje, które będą utrudniać budowanie wspólnego standardu dla otwartej nauki.

9. Dr. Agata Morka, Product Manager ds. Open Access w wydawnictwie De Gruyter Open w wywiadzie dla Open Science opowiada o kosztach wydawania monografii naukowych w otwartym modelu i obawach autorów przed bardziej liberalnymi licencjami. Kibicujemy wydawnictwu by jednak przekonywało autorów do wolnych licencji jak robi to np. Biblioteka Otwartej Nauki.

10. Amerykański Departament Energii jest pierwszym urzędem który wdrożył ogłoszoną przez Biały Dom w 2013 roku dyrektywą dot. otwartego dostępu do publicznie finansowanych wyników badań, Michael Eisen, biolog i promotor otwartego dostępu z Uniwersytetu Berkeley ocenia to wdrożenie i punktuje problemy takie jak zgoda na linkowanie do stron wydawnictw zamiast przechowywania pełnych tekstów w repozytorium.

11. Grupa prestiżowych instytucji badawczych ze Stanów Zjednoczonych Uniwersytety Berkeley, Kalifornii oraz medyczny Nowego Yorku ogłosiło współprace w celu udostępniania i standaryzacji technicznej danych neurologicznych.

12. A jak w praktyce działa otwartość nie tylko dostępu do publikacji, ale również do danych naukowych, w szczególności w naukach ścisłych możecie dowiedzieć się z wywiadu z badaczem i działaczem Open Knowledge Foundation Rossem Mounce’m.

Otwarta kultura

13. We współpracy z z Wikipedią digitalizowana i udostępniana w sieci jest niezwykle ciekawa kolekcja fotografii teatralnych z przełomu wieków XIX i XX należąca do uniwersytetu w Harvardzie.

Otwarte zasoby

14. Coś dla fanów i fanek literatury Science Fiction: na platformie do społecznościowego finansowania książek w otwartych wydania możecie dostać (i wesprzeć autorkę) powieść Zero Sum Game aut. SL Huang.


15. Serwis Lifehacker dwukrotnie w ciągu tygodnia opublikował ciekawe materiały ułatwiające zrozumienie prawa autorskiego w sieci. Najpierw opublikowali nasz plakat o licencjach, a kilka dni później infografikę/schemat ułatwiający sprawdzenie czy możemy użyć danego zdjęcia znalezionego w sieci.

16. Niestety schemat, wydawało by się pełny, nie przewiduje takich problemów jak próba nadania praw autorskich małpie, która sama wykonała sobie zdjęcia. Znana historia makaka który zrobił sobie tzw. selfie z aparatu fotografa pracującego dla National Geographic Davida Slater’a właśnie wróciła do mediów jako spór prawny. Fotograf zażądał usunięcia zdjęcia z Wikimedia Commons, a te odmówiło nie zgadzając się z jego opinią że posiada prawa autorskie do zdjęcia wykonanego przez makaka. Jeśli ktoś jeszcze wierzy, że prawo autorskie nie jest zbyt skomplikowane dla śmiertelników, to jest człowiekiem ogromnej wiary.

17. Zdjęcie makaka to nie jedyny problem Wikipedii w tym tygodniu. na blogu organizacji możemy przeczytać również o tym jakie konsekwencje dla Wikipedii miało głośne orzeczenie Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości w sprawie dot. tzw. prawa do bycia zapomnianym, które uruchomiło możliwość wnioskowania do wyszukiwarki  Google o usuwanie z niej wyników z danymi osobowymi.

18. Z bardziej optymistycznych wiadomości o Wikipedii, Fundacja Wikimedia opublikowała swój pierwszy raport transparentności, z którego możemy dowiedzieć się o ilości zapytań dot. usuwania treści np. z powodów naruszeń prawa autorskiego czy zapytań służb o dane użytkowników.

Otwarte oprogramowanie

19. Particle Clicker czyli gra ucząca fizyki cząstek elementarnych wyprodukowana podczas hakathonu w Europejskiej Organizacji Badań Jądrowych CERN, na licencji MIT.

Fotopedia closes, but CC-licensed photos live on

Creative Commons, August 09, 2014 06:02 PM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

Ho Chi Minh City
Trung Dangy / CC BY-NC-SA

If you’re a fan of photo-and-knowledge-sharing community Fotopedia, you’ve likely heard that the site is closing this Sunday, August 10. When Creative Commons heard the news, we contacted Fotopedia to ask if there were some way that we could help save all of the Creative Commons–licensed photos on the site. Now, we’re working together with the staff at Fotopedia to create a new archive of all of that content. At the same time, our friends at Archive Team are creating a copy of the entire Fotopedia website.

Here at CC, we’ve been big fans of Fotopedia for a long time. The site elegantly mixes together content from Flickr, Wikipedia, and other sources in a way that’s only possible thanks to CC licenses. And over the years, Fotopedia developed an amazing community of people curating all of that content into highly entertaining, visually rich albums.

It’s fitting that all of that work will live on in the new archive. Fotopedia has always been a great example of the power of the decentralized web. Just like Fotopedia brought new life to great photos from Flickr, the archive will bring new life to great photos from Fotopedia.

If you’d like to know when the archive is open, subscribe to our mailing list.. If you have any questions, email us at

Creative Commons salutes Fotopedia for its work as a leader in online content-sharing. We wish Jean-Marie Hullot and his team all the best on their future projects.

Open Brief: Geen Nieuwe Licenties voor Open Access Publicaties

CC Netherlands, August 08, 2014 09:11 AM   License: Naamsvermelding 3.0 Nederland

De International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM)  - waar onder andere de Nederlandse Uitgeversverbond (NUV) lid van is – heeft een aantal model-licenties gemaakt voor uitgevers die materiaal als Open Access beschikbaar willen stellen. In een open brief tekenen tientallen organisaties, inclusief Creative Commons, bezwaar aan tegen deze overeenkomsten. De ondertekenende organisaties zien deze nieuwe licenties als overbodig en onnodig complicerend. Ze zijn incompatibel met bestaande licenties en uiteindelijk schadelijk voor de Open Access beweging. De open brief roept op om gebruik te maken van Creative Commons-licenties.

Open Access Logo

De STM-licenties zijn in strijd met de Budapest Open Access Initiative, een initiatief o.a. getekend door veel grote Nederlandse wetenschappelijke instituten als het AMC, CWI, EUR, TuDelft, RUG, Naturalis, etc. Internationaal zijn PLOS en SPARC grote organisaties die dit initiatief ondertekend hebben. Producenten van de wetenschappelijke kennis gaan met dit initiatief de ene kant op, hun uitgevers bewegen met de STM-licenties een andere kant op.

Het belangrijkste probleem is dat de licenties commercieel gebruik tegengaan, waar de Budapest Open Access Initiative dit wel toestaat. De licenties brengen daarnaast ook onduidelijkheid door expliciet toestemming te geven tot gebruiken waarin geen toestemming voor nodig is binnen de Auteurswet, zoals het linken naar een object. Hiermee wordt geïmpliceerd dat deze toestemming zonder de overeenkomst wel nodig is. Dit schept verwarring bij de gebruikers.

Creative Commons-licenties zijn op het moment de de-facto standaard in de Open Access-wereld. Door één systeem van open licenties aan te houden, hou je werkvelden interoperabel en verschaf je helderheid aan de eindgebruiker. Door gebruik te maken van een groot internationaal netwerk van juristen bij de ontwikkeling van de Creative Commons-licenties zijn ze geschikt bevonden om mondiaal te gebruiken zonder aanpassingen. De STM-licenties houden geen rekening met dit internationale karakter. Hierdoor is de gegeven toestemming niet in alle jurisdicties hetzelfde. Dit leidt tot makkelijk te voorkomen verwarring.

We roepen de STM op om Creative Commons-licenties te gaan gebruiken bij hun publicaties, in plaats van een versplintering in de Open Access wereld te veroorzaken met de STM-licenties.

Lees hier de hele brief.

Update: Lees hier de reactie van STM.

Dozens of organizations tell STM publishers: No new licenses

Communia Association, August 07, 2014 04:46 PM   License: CC0 1.0 Universal

The keys to an elegant set of open licenses are simplicity and interoperability. CC licenses are widely recognized as the standard in the open access publishing community, but a major trade association recently published a new set of licenses and is urging its members to adopt it. We believe that the new licenses could introduce unnecessary complexity and friction, ultimately hurting the open access community far more than they’d help.

Today, COMMUNIA and 57 organizations from around the world released a joint letter asking the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers to withdraw its model “open access” licenses. The association ostensibly created the licenses to promote the sharing of research in the scientific, technical, and medical communities. But these licenses are confusing, redundant, and incompatible with open access content published under other public licenses. Instead of developing another set of licenses, the signatories urge the STM Association to recommend to its authors existing solutions that will truly promote STM’s stated mission to “ensure that the benefits of scholarly research are reliably and broadly available.” From the letter:

We share a positive vision of enabling the flow of knowledge for the good of all. A vision that encompasses a world in which downstream communicators and curators can use research content in new ways, including creating translations, visualizations, and adaptations for diverse audiences. There is much work to do but the Creative Commons licenses already provide legal tools that are easy to understand, fit for the digital age, machine readable and consistently applied across content platforms.

So, what’s really wrong with the STM licenses? First, and most fundamentally, it is difficult to determine what each license and supplementary license is intended to do and how STM expects them each to be used. The Twelve Points to Make Open Access Licensing Work document attempts to explain its goals, but it is not at all clear how the various legal tools work to meet those objectives.

Second, none of the STM licenses comply with the Open Definition, as they all restrict commercial uses and derivatives to a significant extent. And they ignore the long-running benchmark for Open Access publishing: CC BY. CC BY is used by a majority of Open Access publishers, and is recommended as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, and reuse of scholarly work by the Budapest Open Access Initiative.

Third, the license terms and conditions introduce confusion and uncertainty into the world of open access publishing, a community in which the terminology and concepts utilized in CC’s standardized licenses are fairly well accepted and understood.

Fourth, the STM licenses claim to grant permission to do many things that re-users do not need permission to do, such as describing or linking to the licensed work. In addition, it’s questionable for STM to assume that text and data mining can be regulated by their licenses. Under the Creative Commons 4.0 licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to exercise rights under copyright, neighboring rights, and similar rights closely related to copyright (such as sui generis database rights). And the CC license only applies when at least one of these rights held by the licensor applies to the use made by the licensee. This is important because in some countries, text and data mining are activities covered by an exception or limitation to copyright (such as fair use in the United States), so no permission is needed. Most recently the United Kingdom enacted legislation specifically excepting noncommercial text and data mining from the reach of copyright.

Finally, STM’s “supplementary” licenses, which are intended for use with existing licenses, would only work with CC’s most restrictive license, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (BY-NC-ND). Even then they would have very limited legal effect, since much of what they claim to cover is already permitted by all CC licenses. As a practical matter, these license terms are likely to be very confusing to re-users when used in conjunction with a CC license.

The Creative Commons licenses are the demonstrated global standard for open access publishing. They’re used reliably by open access publishers around the world for sharing hundreds of thousands of research articles. Scholarly publishing presents a massive potential to increase our understanding of science. And creativity always builds on the past, whether it be a musician incorporating samples into a new composition or a cancer researcher re-using data from past experiments in their current work.

But to fully realize innovations in science, technology, and medicine, we need clear, universal legal terms so that a researcher can incorporate information from a variety of sources easily and effectively. The research community can enable these flows of information and promote discoveries by sharing writings, data, and analyses in the public commons. We’ve already built the legal tools to support content sharing. Let’s use them and not reinvent the wheel.

Proprietary profitability as a key metric for open access and open source

Mike Linksvayer, August 07, 2014 04:27 PM   License: CC0 1.0 Universal

Glyn Moody in Beyond Open Standards and Open Access:

Like open source, open access is definitely winning, even if there is some desperate rearguard action by the publishers, who are trying to protect their astonishing profit margins – typically 30-40%.

No doubt open source and open access have progressed, but the competition maintaining astonishing profit margins contradicts “definitely winning.” For publishing, see Elsevier, £0.8b profit on £2.1b revenue, and others. For software most pertinent to Moody’s post (concerning Open Document Format), see Microsoft’s business division, $16b profit on $24b revenue.

These profits coupled with the slow relative progress of open source and open access give proprietary vendors huge range to not only take “desperate rearguard action” but also to create new products and forms of lock-in with which the commons is continually playing catch-up.

We know what the commons “definitely winning” looks like — Linux (server software) and Wikipedia (encyclopedias) — and it includes proprietary vendor profit margins being crushed, most going out of business, and those remaining transitioning to service lines of business less predicated on privatized censorship.

When libraries begin mass cancellation of toll access journal subscriptions and organizations of all sorts cancel Microsoft, Adobe, and similar software subscriptions, then we can consider whether open access and open source are definitely winning. Until then the answer is definitely no.

As for what’s next for open standards and open access (Moody suggests further ODF mandates, which would be fine), the obvious answer is open source. It’s what allows realization of the promise of open standards, and the cancellation of Microsoft subscriptions. It’s also what’s next for academic publishing and everything else — what is not software will be obsolete — though cancellation of those toll access subscriptions is going to require going back to basics.

Free/open/commons advocates should consider destruction of proprietary competition profitability a key aim and metric of success or lack thereof, for both open products and policy. This metric has several benefits:

  • Indicates relative progress. Any non-moribund project/movement can make seeming progress, blind to different and potentially much greater progress by competition.
  • Implicates role of knowledge economy and policy in increasing or decreasing equality (of income and wealth, not just access).
  • Hard numbers, data readily available.
  • It’s reasonable to multiply destruction of proprietary profits when characterizing gains (so as to include decrease in deadweight loss).

Dozens of organizations tell STM publishers: No new licenses

Creative Commons, August 07, 2014 04:17 PM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

The keys to an elegant set of open licenses are simplicity and interoperability. CC licenses are widely recognized as the standard in the open access publishing community, but a major trade association recently published a new set of licenses and is urging its members to adopt it. We believe that the new licenses could introduce unnecessary complexity and friction, ultimately hurting the open access community far more than they’d help.

Today, Creative Commons and 57 organizations from around the world released a joint letter asking the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers to withdraw its model “open access” licenses. The association ostensibly created the licenses to promote the sharing of research in the scientific, technical, and medical communities. But these licenses are confusing, redundant, and incompatible with open access content published under other public licenses. Instead of developing another set of licenses, the signatories urge the STM Association to recommend to its authors existing solutions that will truly promote STM’s stated mission to “ensure that the benefits of scholarly research are reliably and broadly available.” From the letter:

We share a positive vision of enabling the flow of knowledge for the good of all. A vision that encompasses a world in which downstream communicators and curators can use research content in new ways, including creating translations, visualizations, and adaptations for diverse audiences. There is much work to do but the Creative Commons licenses already provide legal tools that are easy to understand, fit for the digital age, machine readable and consistently applied across content platforms.

So, what’s really wrong with the STM licenses? First, and most fundamentally, it is difficult to determine what each license and supplementary license is intended to do and how STM expects them each to be used. The Twelve Points to Make Open Access Licensing Work document attempts to explain its goals, but it is not at all clear how the various legal tools work to meet those objectives.

Second, none of the STM licenses comply with the Open Definition, as they all restrict commercial uses and derivatives to a significant extent. And they ignore the long-running benchmark for Open Access publishing: CC BY. CC BY is used by a majority of Open Access publishers, and is recommended as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, and reuse of scholarly work by the Budapest Open Access Initiative.

Third, the license terms and conditions introduce confusion and uncertainty into the world of open access publishing, a community in which the terminology and concepts utilized in CC’s standardized licenses are fairly well accepted and understood.

Fourth, the STM licenses claim to grant permission to do many things that re-users do not need permission to do, such as describing or linking to the licensed work. In addition, it’s questionable for STM to assume that text and data mining can be regulated by their licenses. Under the Creative Commons 4.0 licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to exercise rights under copyright, neighboring rights, and similar rights closely related to copyright (such as sui generis database rights). And the CC license only applies when at least one of these rights held by the licensor applies to the use made by the licensee. This is important because in some countries, text and data mining are activities covered by an exception or limitation to copyright (such as fair use in the United States), so no permission is needed. Most recently the United Kingdom enacted legislation specifically excepting noncommercial text and data mining from the reach of copyright.

Finally, STM’s “supplementary” licenses, which are intended for use with existing licenses, would only work with CC’s most restrictive license, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (BY-NC-ND). Even then they would have very limited legal effect, since much of what they claim to cover is already permitted by all CC licenses. As a practical matter, these license terms are likely to be very confusing to re-users when used in conjunction with a CC license.

The Creative Commons licenses are the demonstrated global standard for open access publishing. They’re used reliably by open access publishers around the world for sharing hundreds of thousands of research articles. Scholarly publishing presents a massive potential to increase our understanding of science. And creativity always builds on the past, whether it be a musician incorporating samples into a new composition or a cancer researcher re-using data from past experiments in their current work.

But to fully realize innovations in science, technology, and medicine, we need clear, universal legal terms so that a researcher can incorporate information from a variety of sources easily and effectively. The research community can enable these flows of information and promote discoveries by sharing writings, data, and analyses in the public commons. We’ve already built the legal tools to support content sharing. Let’s use them and not reinvent the wheel.

Questions should be directed to

Fear Of Smart Contracts

Rob Myers, August 07, 2014 08:16 AM   License: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Babylon, 1772BC, about tea time.
King Hammurabi is explaining the idea of laws to several learned persons.

Hammurabi: So these laws will regulate how we go about our business in society, backed by the coercive power of the state.

Learned Person 1: Hang on. These laws seem to create a causal and moral domain of their own distinct from mere human intercourse. What if they go wrong?

Learned Person 2: Yes, yes! And what if they act against society? Or are written to be evil.

Hammurabi: I’m your king. I would never write bad laws.

Learned Person 1: Yes but suppose a bad king took over. What then? We need something to protect society from these “laws” if they go wrong.

Learned Person 3: Indeed. Most indeededly so.

Hammurabi: Well alright. I’ll add some laws governing the creation and application of laws. That way, laws can be used to govern laws.

Learned Person 3: But that would be like asking the wolf to account for his consumption of lambs!

Learned Person 1: Yes I really don’t see how using laws to alleviate the potential harm of laws works. That’s just circular logic.

Learned Person 4: Yes. What next? Perpetual motion? You’re just begging the question.

Hammurabi: I’m your ****ing king! Shut up and agree with me!

Learned Person 3: If we shut up how are we to agree with you? What do your “laws” say about that?

Learned Person 2: Yeah. There should be laws against people like you…

Hammurabi: GUARDS!

Did Spain just declare war on the commons?

Communia Association, August 06, 2014 12:11 PM   License: CC0 1.0 Universal

Two weeks ago the lower chamber of the Spanish parliament approved a number of changes to Spain’s Intellectual Property Law that directly threaten the ability of Spanish internet users to contribute to the commons. The law introduces a number of modifications to copyright law that expand the scope of exclusive rights over areas that were previously outside of the exclusive rights of copyright holders at the expense of users rights and the public domain.

The main reason for this law seems to be the desire of Spanish newspaper publishers to get a legally guaranteed income stream from news aggregation sites. What is happening in Spain is a modification of the (largely failed) attempt by German news publishers to make news aggregators (such as Google News) pay for using small parts of news articles that they link to.

Compared to the German attempt, the Spanish approach is more elaborate, and more dangerous. While the German legislators simply created an ancillary right for press publishers and left it up to the publishers whether and how to enforce, waive or license the right, the Spanish law (English translation of the relevant bits here) approaches it from the user side of the equation:

Here, the law creates a right for ‘electronic content aggregation providers’ to use ‘non-significant fragments of aggregated content which are disclosed in periodic publications or on websites which are regularly updated’ without the permission of the rights holder. However such uses require payment of a ‘fair remuneration’ to the rights holder (via a collecting society). This is a right that content providers already have and can choose to license or waive assuming the non-significant fragments are copyrightable and absent an applicable exception or limitation.  What this new legislation does is eliminate the ability of providers to choose how to exercise this right, and impose a mandatory royalty on reusers even for content that has been made available under a public license such as Creative Commons or that is otherwise available under an exception to copyright or in the public domain.

Collateral damage

While at first this may sound like a limitation of the exclusive rights of publishers, this construction works in the opposite direction. Because the new right is unwaivable, creators and publications who want to encourage others to reuse their content cannot waive the requirement that users must pay for aggregating their content. With this construction the proposed law aims to make sure that publishers cannot decide to not enforce their right when the publishers actually benefit from the activities provided through aggregation platforms (as has been done in Germany). Unfortunately the unwaivable nature of this new right has the potential to cause massive collateral damage among other internet users.

As the new right would apply to all ‘content disclosed in periodic publications or on websites which are regularly updated’ it would not only apply to traditional news publications but pretty much any website that is regularly updated (such as a blog). While traditional publishers may welcome this new right, it is fair to assume that there is a substantial number of creators and publishers who do not want to be remunerated for re-use of non-significant fragments taken from their websites either because their business models is based on traffic or because they want to share their writings as widely as possible.

Even worse the new law also threatens render ineffective the Creative Commons licenses that are used by many creators to explicitly allow others to reuse their creations for free in many situations. By making the right unwaivable aggregators are required to pay fair remuneration to a collective rights management organisations even if a creator has chosen to apply a Creative Commons license that allows the free reuse of her creation.

These negative effects of the new law do not limit themselves to the field of blogging and general web publishing. Over at Global Voices, Renata Avila makes the case that the revised law would also impact open access publishing activities by Spanish scholars and academic institutions:

The current reform of Spain’s copyright law incorporates a new levy on universities that is related to open access to publications. Under the policy, universities that want to share research or other content for free will be prohibited from doing so beyond the confines of their institution and personnel. In other words, if you are an author from a university and you want to share beyond the academic world and someone links to your journal article, that person must pay even if you do not even want the payment. A percentage of these fees will be collected by the Spanish agency CEDRO (Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos) and the virtual campuses of universities will be required to comply.

Given the above it is clear that what may have started as another ill-conceived attempt to support the failing business models of traditional publishers by extending the scope of copyright is in fact a massive attack on the commons and business models that do not rely on limiting access to creative works. Not only does this have negative effects on the users of copyrighted works but it also frustrates authors’ right to choose how to share their works and under what terms.

As such the upcoming amendment of the spanish IPR law is another illustration of the dangers of looking at copyright law primarily as an enabler of a specific set of business models.

Creative Commons announces launch of CC Belarus

Creative Commons, August 06, 2014 11:43 AM   License: Attribution 3.0 Unported

Creative Commons leaflet
Creative Commons leaflet / Sviatlana Yermakovich / CC BY-SA

Creative Commons is happy to announce the launch of CC Belarus. Youth organization Falanster is now the belarusian Creative Commons affiliate team!

On August 29, the official launch of CC Belarus will take place in Minsk. For now, CC Belarus will focus on the following topics:

  • researching the applicability of Creative Commons licenses in Belarusian legislation
  • connect with foreign teams to exchange experiences
  • organizing open discussions on adding Creative Commons licenses to Belarusian law
  • create a platform to discuss the reform of Belarusian Copyright Law
  • inform the Belarusian public about Creative Commons

Falanster began using Creative Commons licenses on its own sites (,,, has been hosting meetings to endorse the open source principles, organised the Minsk Open Data Day in 2014, and has hosted several summer courses with lectures and panel discussions about copyright law and necessary reforms. Since 2013, Falanster has been holding Wiki-Days periodically, encouraging participants to add articles and photos to Wikipedia (Belarusian, Russian, English). The team has also been spreading information about Creative Commons through leaflets.

More about the CC Belarus team and contact information